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

[Ravin]

What you are doing is mixing the other categories with this one, which you cannot do, a fallacy repeated over and over and over here. The other categories have to do with prejudice, not proscriptions. There is no Biblical proscription about serving other races, women, Jews, Muslims etc; in fact, the totality of scripture is heavily weighted in favor of doing so.

 

This particular issue is not about cakes or service; is about what constitutes marriage in the first place. One can't in good conscience violate something scriptural as a matter of conscience even if everyone else is doing it.

The issue of refusing selling cakes to people of a protected class is not about the definition of marriage.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

It is irrelevant what any of the rest of us believed.  It is relevant what HE believed at the time that he acted on his belief, and whether sexual orientation was protected at the time (it was not, in the Colorado case). 

 

No, this most decidedly does not open it up for all to discriminate against everyone.  The protected categories are already well-established, based on immutable, indisputable traits, like race, religion, national origin, gender, etc. 

 

Are you lying, or are you not paying attention? Colorado passed anti-discrimination laws in 2008 that prohibit any establishment that provides "accommodations"--that is, any goods or services of any kind--from discriminating against their customers on the basis of sexual orientation. This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with a wedding (which had actually legally taken place already, in another state). It has to do with refusing to sell the plaintiffs a cake. It doesn't matter what they wanted it for. That's the bottom line. These laws were passed FOUR YEARS before the incident occurred. 

[Corraleno]

Religious views should be respected.  Christians are not commanded to deny services to any protected class.  And sexual orientation has never been a protected class - until suddenly  now - because it is based not on immutable, indisputable characteristics as all protected classes are, but rather based on the completely malleable feelings or self-concept of a person and his personal sexual decisions. 

 

There is plenty of research indicating that sexual orientation is biologically based, rather than simply a matter of "choice."

 

OTOH, I am unaware of any research indicating that a person's religious beliefs are genetically determined and immutable. And yet it's illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their choice of religion.

 

Even if you deny the science indicating that homosexuality is not a choice, you cannot deny that religion is, and therefore "protected classes" are NOT all based on "immutable" characteristics. 

[TranquilMind]

This is blatantly incorrect, as several of us have told you. The anti-discrimination laws went into effect in 2008. The incident occurred in 2012. 

I misspoke.  Gay marriage was not legal in Colorado at the time, is what I meant to say.  Not that sexual orientation was not locally a protected category.  Mea culpa.

[TranquilMind]

Are you lying, or are you not paying attention? Colorado passed anti-discrimination laws in 2008 that prohibit any establishment that provides "accommodations"--that is, any goods or services of any kind--from discriminating against their customers on the basis of sexual orientation. This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with a wedding (which had actually legally taken place already, in another state). It has to do with refusing to sell the plaintiffs a cake. It doesn't matter what they wanted it for. That's the bottom line. These laws were passed FOUR YEARS before the incident occurred. 

No, Gay MARRIAGE was illegal at the time, is what I meant to say, not that sexual orientation had not become legal yet.  My mistake. 

[*Lulu*]

Are you lying, or are you not paying attention? Colorado passed anti-discrimination laws in 2008 that prohibit any establishment that provides "accommodations"--that is, any goods or services of any kind--from discriminating against their customers on the basis of sexual orientation. This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with a wedding (which had actually legally taken place already, in another state). It has to do with refusing to sell the plaintiffs a cake. It doesn't matter what they wanted it for. That's the bottom line. These laws were passed FOUR YEARS before the incident occurred.

You are missing the big picture:

 

Facts are irrelevant.

 

All that matters is what you believe about the facts.

 

Believing birth control pills are abortifacients is more important than any fact to the contrary.

 

Believing sexual orientation is not a protected class is more important than the fact that a law has been on the books for years.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I misspoke.  Gay marriage was not legal in Colorado at the time, is what I meant to say.  Not that sexual orientation was not locally a protected category.  Mea culpa.

 

Understood.

[Corraleno]

It is irrelevant what any of the rest of us believed.  It is relevant what HE believed at the time that he acted on his belief, and whether sexual orientation was protected at the time (it was not, in the Colorado case). 

 

No, this most decidedly does not open it up for all to discriminate against everyone.  The protected categories are already well-established, based on immutable, indisputable traits, like race, religion, national origin, gender, etc. 

 

What the heck???  :confused1:

 

How on earth are you claiming that religion is an immutable characteristic???

 

Why do you keep insisting that gays were not a protected class in Colorado in 2012, when it is a indisputable FACT that they were?

 

ETA:

 

No, Gay MARRIAGE was illegal at the time, is what I meant to say, not that sexual orientation had not become legal yet.  My mistake. 

 

No, gay marriage was not "illegal" — it was unrecognized in the state of CO, not against the law. This has been repeated over and over, and you keep ignoring this distinction. And what in the world does it mean that "sexual orientation had not become legal yet?" :confused1:  

 

 

[creekland]

 It also is a strong candidate for "Thread Least Likely to Change Anyone's Mind."

 

Well... it's changed my mind about participating in it.  ;)

[Frances]

No, Gay MARRIAGE was illegal at the time, is what I meant to say, not that sexual orientation had not become legal yet.  My mistake. 

So now you understand that the baker was breaking the law?

[Tanaqui]

I misspoke.  Gay marriage was not legal in Colorado at the time, is what I meant to say.  Not that sexual orientation was not locally a protected category.  Mea culpa.

 

And you are STILL misspeaking. As has been explained, "not recognized" is not a term that is synonymous with "not legal", or worse yet, "illegal".

 

 

[elegantlion]

No. It's not. It's about following the laws of this nation, which apply to everybody regardless of belief.

 

I also remember something about rendering to Caesar what is Caesars. I think it was in reference to taxes, but I've always understood it as Christ "highly suggesting" you follow the laws of the land in which you reside. 

[TranquilMind]

The issue of refusing selling cakes to people of a protected class is not about the definition of marriage.

The issue of selling a WEDDING cake (not "cakes") to someone to celebrate what cannot be a "wedding" in your faith is indeed about religious belief. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Well... it's changed my mind about participating in it.   ;)

 

:lol: This was such a Stadtler & Waldorf moment!

[Cindy in FL.]

So you know everyone else's mind. Some study said this so it must be true. Maybe you should do a PSA and let these people know so they don't waste more time believing a lie.

 

Yeah, except the evidence suggests that they didn't, they're just lying to themselves. But go ahead - try it out for yourself. Don't rely on other people. If YOU come back and YOU say that you've been gay for a whole week, I'll concede the point. Like I said, you don't have to do anything special, you just have to change your attraction for seven days. You still stay with your spouse, and you don't date or anything, you just change so that you're more attracted to hot chicks than hot guys.

[Tanaqui]

The issue of selling a WEDDING cake (not "cakes") to someone to celebrate what cannot be a "wedding" is indeed about religious belief. 

 

It's a tiered cake. Who cares if they use it for their wedding or their birthday or their big annual food fight?

 

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

The issue of selling a WEDDING cake (not "cakes") to someone to celebrate what cannot be a "wedding" is indeed about religious belief. 

 

Precisely. It wasn't a wedding the baker was even asked to make a cake for. It was a commitment ceremony. Look at that, we solved the problem!

[Tanaqui]

Cindy, multiple studies have shown so. However, we can resolve this easily when you put your money where your mouth is and try it out for yourself. Don't bother replying back until you have. No sex or kissing or anything, just change your attraction for a week.

[Cindy in FL.]

This is true. However, if the law of the land required you to do something that went against God's law you should not obey. So if they said you had to worship Caesar, that would be a no go.

 

I also remember something about rendering to Caesar what is Caesars. I think it was in reference to taxes, but I've always understood it as Christ "highly suggesting" you follow the laws of the land in which you reside.

[Scarlett]

Yeah, except the evidence suggests that they didn't, they're just lying to themselves. But go ahead - try it out for yourself. Don't rely on other people. If YOU come back and YOU say that you've been gay for a whole week, I'll concede the point. Like I said, you don't have to do anything special, you just have to change your attraction for seven days. You still stay with your spouse, and you don't date or anything, you just change so that you're more attracted to hot chicks than hot guys.

 

Some people believe that humans are capable of not acting on feelings. It is possible to have feelings of attraction for someone and not act on those feelings. So in that case a gay person wouldn't be changing their feelings but they could change their behavior. And that would not have to go so far as to marry opposite sex to try to force what doesn't feel good to them....but rather to refrain from behaviors that they believe would be displeasing to God. Some people believe that God did not create people with these feelings, but rather that the human race is in a state of imperfection at the moment.

 

But generally those would be religious people and if one is not religious the above paragraph would read like hog wash. And thus we are back to having polar opposite beliefs about a very sensitive subject.

[Cindy in FL.]

Move on.

 

Cindy, multiple studies have shown so. However, we can resolve this easily when you put your money where your mouth is and try it out for yourself. Don't bother replying back until you have. No sex or kissing or anything, just change your attraction for a week.

[Tanaqui]

Cindy, is that a concession? Because if you're not willing to try it out, it sounds like you're saying you know I'm right. How about just for an hour? Twenty minutes? Fifteen seconds?

[Tanaqui]

Some people believe that humans are capable of not acting on feelings. It is possible to have feelings of attraction for someone and not act on those feelings.

 

But those people are still gay. Period.

 

[TranquilMind]

It's a tiered cake. Who cares if they use it for their wedding or their birthday or their big annual food fight?

 

No one.  Go buy a cake anywhere.  If you want a wedding cake, buy it from someone who wants to be represented at your wedding. 

 

But they brought it up, and probably targeted this Christian baker.  But we will never know, unless someone has outed them on that.  It's been done a lot. 

[TranquilMind]

But those people are still gay. Period.

People are what they say they are and what they do.  That's why brains exhibit changes after one engages in behaviors and activities  in the long run, and not prior to, no matter what they are (exercise, sex, drugs, etc). 

[Tanaqui]

This is true. However, if the law of the land required you to do something that went against God's law you should not obey. So if they said you had to worship Caesar, that would be a no go.

 

 

Which verse in the Bible says you cannot sell products to nonbelievers? (Many gays are Christians, of course, but we're assuming that you interpret the Bible very differently and thus they're not believers in your particular denomination.)

 

[LucyStoner]

Oh, geez. You know, I think it might be time for the rational discussion flowchart.

 

Anybody arguing a point which has already been refuted loses. And TranquilMind, if you say ONE MORE TIME that religion is an "immutable trait" I'm going to reach through my computer and throw a pie in your face. If religion was so immutable, there wouldn't be any Christians, because all early Christians would have stayed Jews or Pagans or whatever.

There now, don't go wasting no pie.

[*Lulu*]

No one. Go buy a cake anywhere. If you want a wedding cake, buy it from someone who wants to be represented at your wedding.

 

But they brought it up, and probably targeted this Christian baker. But we will never know, unless someone has outed them on that. It's been done a lot.

Like the black students who staged sit ins at white only dining establishments?

 

They purposely sought out places that didn't want to serve them to prove the point that it was wrong. Shall we criticize them as well?

[Tanaqui]

I am a bird! No, wait, I'm not, even though I say I am. Try again.

 

No one.  Go buy a cake anywhere.  If you want a wedding cake, buy it from someone who wants to be represented at your wedding. 

 

Wait, wait, wait. What if I sell dresses, and somebody buys my dress and wears it as a guest to a wedding? I'm represented there! What if I sell lightbulbs, and they use my brand of lightbulbs on some TV show I hate? OH NO! What if... what if... what if nobody honestly thinks that being a vendor means you're represented at a wedding? They're selling a cake. They're not performing the ceremony.

 

But they brought it up, and probably targeted this Christian baker.  But we will never know, unless someone has outed them on that.  It's been done a lot.

 

 

Do you have a citation for that? Because I'm pretty sure if you don't, it's lying, and isn't bearing false witness one of those sin thingies?

[*Lulu*]

There now, don't go wasting no pie.

Unless it is cherry.

 

I repeat, cherry is evil.

[Tanaqui]

There now, don't go wasting no pie.

 

(Even squid pie?)

 

[Frances]

No one.  Go buy a cake anywhere.  If you want a wedding cake, buy it from someone who wants to be represented at your wedding. 

 

But they brought it up, and probably targeted this Christian baker.  But we will never know, unless someone has outed them on that.  It's been done a lot. 

In the famous case in my state the baker was most definitely not targeted. The gay couple had been regular customers at the bakery and when of the woman and her mom went to order her wedding cake,  everything was going smoothly until the owner discovered it was for a gay wedding. The couple had no idea when they went to that bakery that one of the fun aspects of wedding planning would turn into a very negative experience.

[Slartibartfast]

Unless it is cherry.

 

I repeat, cherry is evil.

I think cherry pie made with actual cherries is a sacrament. Cherry pie made with canned cherries is an abomination.

[*Lulu*]

(Even squid pie?)

 

Ugh.

 

That just might be a sign of the end times.

[*Lulu*]

I think cherry pie made with actual cherries is a sacrament. Cherry pie made with canned cherries is an abomination.

Agreed.

[texasmama]

(Even squid pie?)

Ewwww, gross.  Please waste that.

 

[Tanaqui]

Wait, did nobody click the link on pie? Sheesh. I'm not googling these things for my health.

[elegantlion]

This is true. However, if the law of the land required you to do something that went against God's law you should not obey. So if they said you had to worship Caesar, that would be a no go.

 

 

And yet no one is asking anyone to worship a gay person. 

[texasmama]

Wait, did nobody click the link on pie? Sheesh. I'm not googling these things for my health.

Your pie link frightens me.  What if it contains pie porn?

[Tanaqui]

LOL, no!

[texasmama]

Ewww, I clicked.

[*Lulu*]

Ewww, I clicked.

Me too.

 

Gross, but in the most awesome way!

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

OK, I'm off to the bakery for DH's birthday cake. After two days of wedding cake discussion, I may have to get one cake for me to eat now and another for when he gets home. Even the Lindt truffle I just sucked down didn't help. 

 

Man, I am starving.

 

Don't get the thread locked while I'm gone, OK? 

[Jane in NC]

No one.  Go buy a cake anywhere.  If you want a wedding cake, buy it from someone who wants to be represented at your wedding. 

 

But they brought it up, and probably targeted this Christian baker.  But we will never know, unless someone has outed them on that.  It's been done a lot. 

 

Business people near me do not adorn their doors with religious symbols.  Even the presence of a cross would not indicate to me that a business owner is anti-gay.  Most Christians whom I know are more tolerant.

 

This thread has been fascinating to me in light of recent court decisions that corporations are people.  Can a corporation have a religion? Is that the next inevitable step?

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Business people near me do not adorn their doors with religious symbols.  Even the presence of a cross would not indicate to me that a business owner is anti-gay.  Most Christians whom I know are more tolerant.

 

This thread has been fascinating to me in light of recent court decisions that corporations are people.  Can a corporation have a religion? Is that the next inevitable step?

 

This is a good (and frightening) question.

[TranquilMind]

Business people near me do not adorn their doors with religious symbols.  Even the presence of a cross would not indicate to me that a business owner is anti-gay.  Most Christians whom I know are more tolerant.

 

This thread has been fascinating to me in light of recent court decisions that corporations are people.  Can a corporation have a religion? Is that the next inevitable step?

It has been fascinating to me as well, as I consider it merely an exercise to defend the religious rights of people who are condemned in this way in the media.  None of you has the slightest idea where I really fall on this issue at all.  ;) 

I couldn't keep up though...whoa...probably a hundred responses.    Groupthink bothers me, so I will always challenge it. 

[Cindy in FL.]

I was only responding to what you said. How you come up with this has me a bit baffled. Yes, Christians are to obey the law of the land unless it goes against God's law.

 

And yet no one is asking anyone to worship a gay person.

[Amira]

Wait, did nobody click the link on pie? Sheesh. I'm not googling these things for my health.

:rofl:

[TranquilMind]

Business people near me do not adorn their doors with religious symbols.  Even the presence of a cross would not indicate to me that a business owner is anti-gay.  Most Christians whom I know are more tolerant.

 

This thread has been fascinating to me in light of recent court decisions that corporations are people.  Can a corporation have a religion? Is that the next inevitable step?

Seriously...do you think it is necessary because no one knows which bakers are known to do Christian (or whichever religion) weddings?  I think that would be pretty easy to determine, as some of them even have names that are Biblical references. 

 

At any rate, the gay activists sure aren't tolerant.  The Kleins of Oregon were threatened, their suppliers were threatened, and their kids got death threats.  Talk about tolerant. 

[TranquilMind]

OK, I'm off to the bakery for DH's birthday cake. After two days of wedding cake discussion, I may have to get one cake for me to eat now and another for when he gets home. Even the Lindt truffle I just sucked down didn't help. 

 

Man, I am starving.

 

Don't get the thread locked while I'm gone, OK? 

I think any thread that begins with religious arguments are veers into cakes and pies will survive.