ktgrok Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Weird topic title, I know. But I found this article really really compelling. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/07/your-deeply-held-religious-belief-isnt-biblical/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PATH&utm_content=unfundamentalistchristians 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommytobees Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 That was interesting. I haven't approved of any of this behavior. The cake shop sells cakes, not ideals. The photographer takes pictures. Hobby Lobby sells craft supplies and should not be trying to make medical decisions for their employees. Kris 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) Yeah, no. I'll leave aside the issues with Patheos as a whole - many authors and commentators have addressed this topic thoroughly and debunked the frankly awful eisegesis here. It's one thing to claim that an individual cannot square their own feelings and conscience with 2000 years of hermeneutics and doctrine on this subject. It's another to claim the Bible actually says what no solid church father in the previous two millennia derived from scripture. For all the arguments about why someone should or shouldn't make an issue of the topic, claiming the Bible doesn't teach clearly in both positive and negative framing on God's intent for human sexuality is among the weakest in support of the lot. Hypocrisy is addressed, absolutely, but it is not the whole of the text of Romans, especially considering that Romans 1-2 is setting up a set of arguments that the entire rest of the letter then addresses thoroughly. And the conclusions further in Romans support no such limited reading of it as is being claimed. The claims leveled about Matthew 5 have been similarly addressed and Dr. Michael Brown would be where I would direct anyone seeking a deeper treatise on this topic. He has talked of it thoroughly. That's as much as I will say about that. Edited October 18, 2016 by Arctic Mama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janeway Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 That was interesting. I haven't approved of any of this behavior. The cake shop sells cakes, not ideals. The photographer takes pictures. Hobby Lobby sells craft supplies and should not be trying to make medical decisions for their employees. Kris Hobby Lobby does not make medical decisions for their employees. They simply don't pay for abortions. And considering the cost for an abortion is less than the copay for most surgeries, it is not a big deal. Insurances have a lot of exclusions. Abortions are at the bottom of my list for trying to force any private employer to pay. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 18, 2016 Author Share Posted October 18, 2016 Hobby Lobby does not make medical decisions for their employees. They simply don't pay for abortions. And considering the cost for an abortion is less than the copay for most surgeries, it is not a big deal. Insurances have a lot of exclusions. Abortions are at the bottom of my list for trying to force any private employer to pay. It was also the morning after pill and IUDs. (morning after pill has been proven not to work if ovulation has already taken place, so no, it is not an abortion pill) 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Yep. I'm really a really conservative Christian but I've never believed the Bible told me I couldn't do business with homosexuals even though I believe homosexuality itself is sinful because the Bible clearly says so. It's an impossible standard no one could possibly live up to. If you think a wedding industry business is approving of a marriage because it provides goods and services to people getting married, then you're nuts. My mother and cousin worked in the wedding industry for years and strongly disapproved of plenty of heterosexual marriages on Biblical grounds (divorced for unbiblical reasons resulting in a legal marriage that he Bible would classify as adultery, a believer marrying an unbeliever and abuse situations) but they didn't refuse services. If you choose not to on the grounds of homosexuality, then you have to choose not to on those grounds too. Not many takers on that one. 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 The Hobby Lobby issue is yet another example of why no business should EVER pay for an employee's health insurance, just like they shouldn't pay for their car insurance and homeowner's insurance. What each employer is paying for medical insurance should be added to the employee's salary or wages so the employee can get their own medical insurance that meets their own conscience and their own medical needs. Problem solved. Neither should an employer pay for pensions or retirement. Add those funds to the salary and wages too and stop infantalizing adults. Grown ups should manage their own money and their own retirement as they see fit. 26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Hobby Lobby does not make medical decisions for their employees. They simply don't pay for abortions. And considering the cost for an abortion is less than the copay for most surgeries, it is not a big deal. Insurances have a lot of exclusions. Abortions are at the bottom of my list for trying to force any private employer to pay. I never had an insurance plan that paid for abortions and I bet many people have not. The issue wasn't with abortions, but with birth control. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Yep. I'm really a really conservative Christian but I've never believed the Bible told me I couldn't do business with homosexuals even though I believe homosexuality itself is sinful because the Bible clearly says so. It's an impossible standard no one could possibly live up to. If you think a wedding industry business is approving of a marriage because it provides goods and services to people getting married, then you're nuts. My mother and cousin worked in the wedding industry for years and strongly disapproved of plenty of heterosexual marriages on Biblical grounds (divorced for unbiblical reasons resulting in a legal marriage that he Bible would classify as adultery, a believer marrying an unbeliever and abuse situations) but they didn't refuse services. If you choose not to on the grounds of homosexuality, then you have to choose not to on those grounds too. Not many takers on that one. Exactly. Seriously, Jews and NT Christians had to do business with Rome! Rome...I mean good grief, what a hot bed of lascivious behavior. There is no record of this being "wrong" for the Jew or Gentile believer. "Closely held belief" has been code for thousands of years for abusing other people. We shouldn't allow it. If someone feels that strongly about it, they should start a private club and only do business with their membership. Public businesses must serve the public. Period. The bigger issue for me is that these business owners incorporate as LLC's in order to avoid any personal liability for their businesses. They become a thing, an impersonal business unit in order to be "off the hook" personally. So my huge concern is that when we are start ascribing rights and feelings and beliefs to mere things, to corporations, then we have the beginnings of anarchy because there is literally nothing that these things can't claim is closely held. Don't want to serve anyone but whites. Don't want to serve Jews, don't want to serve women, don't want to pay workman's comp (not a far cry....the owner only has to claim he has a closely held personal belief against paying for government provided insurance), don't want to pay..... the laundry list of things that a corporation could claims it doesn't have to pay due to rights and beliefs staggers the imagination. SCOTUS completely and utterly failed. 100% failed. If you remove yourself through incorporation from personal liability for the business, then you don't get to suddenly invoke personal belief over the operations of the business. This is the kind of religious control that allows a civilized society to descend into a hot, primitive mess. No thanks. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) Oh never mind. This will proceed as it always does. Edited October 18, 2016 by Arctic Mama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rose Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 At some point a person just needs to say no. Would you take photos for a wedding of a 60yo man marrying a 16yo as his 5th wife just because it was legal? It might be in a few years. Would you sell something to someone that would help them cheat on their spouse? You might be allowed to do these things I think that we not to or else we share in the guilt. Participation does equal endorsement, at least to some extent. Jesus says, "“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." I don't want to in any way help someone sin. Frankly, I'd rather die then knowingly help someone sin. This issue highlights to me why Christianity will always stumble against society. When we can't endorse what the world wants us to endorse conflict is just inevitable. I think that sadly, as pointed out in the article, most people aren't consistent and are willing to do endorse other unscriptural marriage but draw the line at homosexual marriage. Homosexuallity is not a special sin. Jesus also says that, "he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The lack of consistency is part of the reason why the name of Christ is being blasphemed among the nations. If we were consistent we would seem crazy and be hated but at least we wouldn't look like we just hated gay people. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 At some point a person just needs to say no. Would you take photos for a wedding of a 60yo man marrying a 16yo as his 5th wife just because it was legal? It might be in a few years. Would you sell something to someone that would help them cheat on their spouse? You might be allowed to do these things I think that we not to or else we share in the guilt. Participation does equal endorsement, at least to some extent. Jesus says, "“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." I don't want to in any way help someone sin. Frankly, I'd rather die then knowingly help someone sin. This issue highlights to me why Christianity will always stumble against society. When we can't endorse what the world wants us to endorse conflict is just inevitable. I think that sadly, as pointed out in the article, most people aren't consistent and are willing to do endorse other unscriptural marriage but draw the line at homosexual marriage. Homosexuallity is not a special sin. Jesus also says that, "he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The lack of consistency is part of the reason why the name of Christ is being blasphemed among the nations. If we were consistent we would seem crazy and be hated but at least we wouldn't look like we just hated gay people. Inconsistency is definitely an issue. But what I don't understand is why people who feel so strongly about something go into a business in which they will be faced with this choice. If one feels that firmly about gay marriage why offer wedding cakes in the business to begin with? If you aren't willing to enforce equally the beliefs of your religion, then for certain you will get caught in the legalities of inconsistency? Why not go into the grocery business, or automotive repair, or lawn care, or road construction, or.....plenty of other fields to partake in that would not be impacted on appearing to "sanction" something you feel so strongly about. As for the specific case of this specific baker, if you dig deeper into the documentation, you will find that the real thing he got in trouble for was leaking the names and address of the brides, one of whom was a foster parent. The children received death threats, and CPS had to move them in order to protect them. The lawsuit was for damages because the children were in the process of being adopted, and the couple temporarily lost custody due to the actions of the baker. Thankfully they did get the children back. I cannot imagine the trauma to the children. UGH! 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I don't think Baker's and photographers and florists, etc have any standing on this issue. They are selling a product. I could see a church or religious leader refusing to perform a wedding. That makes sense. The baker, photographer, florist etc are not part of the religious passage. There is nothing in any religion I know that says a marriage is based on cake or flowers or pictures. To me the actions of a baker refusing to make a wedding cake are like a restaurant refusing to serve a gay couple. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 19, 2016 Author Share Posted October 19, 2016 Right. Selling a person a cake is not causing them to sin. Unless maybe their sin is gluttony. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaqui Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) Well, this is going to end up where I expect it to. Can everybody I'd normally upvote just take it as given that I've upvoted your comments? I don't think I have the energy for this today. And the rest of you, just, like, argue with yourselves. You know the drill. Edited October 19, 2016 by Tanaqui 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 If we were consistent we would seem crazy and be hated but at least we wouldn't look like we just hated gay people. I don't agree with not selling the cake, but I totally agree with this statement. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rose Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Inconsistency is definitely an issue. But what I don't understand is why people who feel so strongly about something go into a business in which they will be faced with this choice. If one feels that firmly about gay marriage why offer wedding cakes in the business to begin with? If you aren't willing to enforce equally the beliefs of your religion, then for certain you will get caught in the legalities of inconsistency? Why not go into the grocery business, or automotive repair, or lawn care, or road construction, or.....plenty of other fields to partake in that would not be impacted on appearing to "sanction" something you feel so strongly about. I actually totally agree with you about this. I wouldn't do a job that would require me to frequently turn people down like that. It will just get too messy too quick. As for the specific case of this specific baker, if you dig deeper into the documentation, you will find that the real thing he got in trouble for was leaking the names and address of the brides, one of whom was a foster parent. The children received death threats, and CPS had to move them in order to protect them. The lawsuit was for damages because the children were in the process of being adopted, and the couple temporarily lost custody due to the actions of the baker. Thankfully they did get the children back. I cannot imagine the trauma to the children. UGH! That's terrible! I can appreciate the lawsuit under those conditions. ------------------ One other point that I want to add to this conversation is that regardless of your profession or even your faith everybody who works as a salesperson or independent contractor may at some point come upon a situation that they don't want to get involved in. They have right to not sell or contract to a particular person. A carpenter might turn someone down because they don't want to build a mega-mansion. A photographer might know that a particular client has a reputation for being unhappy with everything. A door-to-door salesman may choose not to go to the house with the big dog. A doctor can refuse to see children. A landlord can reject applicants for many many different reasons. There are countless examples that I could give. In all these situations we allow the salesman/contractor the right not to do business with whomever they choose. This doesn't seem like a special case to me. I'm really not political by nature. I just piped in here because I think that Christians really should make sure that they keep their consciences clean. How the world responds is their business and I don't get too uptight about that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 At some point a person just needs to say no. Would you take photos for a wedding of a 60yo man marrying a 16yo as his 5th wife just because it was legal? It might be in a few years. Would you sell something to someone that would help them cheat on their spouse? You might be allowed to do these things I think that we not to or else we share in the guilt. Participation does equal endorsement, at least to some extent. Jesus says, "“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." I don't want to in any way help someone sin. Frankly, I'd rather die then knowingly help someone sin. This issue highlights to me why Christianity will always stumble against society. When we can't endorse what the world wants us to endorse conflict is just inevitable. I think that sadly, as pointed out in the article, most people aren't consistent and are willing to do endorse other unscriptural marriage but draw the line at homosexual marriage. Homosexuallity is not a special sin. Jesus also says that, "he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The lack of consistency is part of the reason why the name of Christ is being blasphemed among the nations. If we were consistent we would seem crazy and be hated but at least we wouldn't look like we just hated gay people. Really? So, given the choice of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple or death, you would choose death??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest2 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) I read the article and the author seems to be saying that one cannot have deeply held beliefs unless they are written in scripture. That may be a problem for a sola scriptura Christian, but many Christians have deeply held beliefs that are in their catecism,ect, not only in the bible. What about other religions...that may not follow the bible? I think the arugment is a poor one. Edited October 19, 2016 by Silver Brook 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rose Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Really? So, given the choice of baking a wedding cake for a gay couple or death, you would choose death??? Yup. I don't think that I should sin or encourage sin (that would be sin itself). This is why countless Christian have been martyred throughout the history of the church. You make it sound as though baking a cake is trivial but if I offend God then what do I have to say for myself when I stand before him. I'm sure the Romans when they pressed people to burn a little incense for their gods thought that the Christian were terribly inconsiderate and downright ridiculous to choose death in the colloseum over just a little incense to show respect. I'm also sure that those that drowned Christian for refusing to baptize their babies or being re-baptized themselves thought that they were being so petty and divisive to take such a stand. Little issues really represent big issues. There's way more behind this then just whether or not someone accepts homosexuality as legitimate or not. For Christians like me it's an issue of eternal consequence. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest2 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) It was also the morning after pill and IUDs. (morning after pill has been proven not to work if ovulation has already taken place, so no, it is not an abortion pill)The morning after pill is often referred to as an abortion pill because the result of the medicine is not to allow implantation and expel the tiny human embryo. It is not the same as the RU486, though. So if your definition of the begining of human life is conception, it acts the same. Look at number three from the FDA: here is the link:http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm109795.htm ". If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work." Just sayin. Edited October 19, 2016 by Silver Brook 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Yup. I don't think that I should sin or encourage sin (that would be sin itself). This is why countless Christian have been martyred throughout the history of the church. You make it sound as though baking a cake is trivial but if I offend God then what do I have to say for myself when I stand before him. I'm sure the Romans when they pressed people to burn a little incense for their gods thought that the Christian were terribly inconsiderate and downright ridiculous to choose death in the colloseum over just a little incense to show respect. I'm also sure that those that drowned Christian for refusing to baptize their babies or being re-baptized themselves thought that they were being so petty and divisive to take such a stand. Little issues really represent big issues. There's way more behind this then just whether or not someone accepts homosexuality as legitimate or not. For Christians like me it's an issue of eternal consequence. Alrighty then. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 19, 2016 Author Share Posted October 19, 2016 The morning after pill is often referred to as an abortion pill as the result of the medicine is not to allow implantation and expell tiny human embryo. It is not the same as the RU486, though. So if your definition of the begining of human life is conception, it acts the same. Look at number three from the FDA: here is the link:http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm109795.htm ". If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work." Just sayin. Newer research shows that isn't true. I believe they are working on changing the insert. Again, it works to delay ovulation. If it delays the ovulation, there is no fertilization. If ovulation already occurred (and therefore fertilization is a possibility) it doesn't work. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) Newer research shows that isn't true. I believe they are working on changing the insert. Again, it works to delay ovulation. If it delays the ovulation, there is no fertilization. If ovulation already occurred (and therefore fertilization is a possibility) it doesn't work. These studies basically showed that if a woman had already ovulated and took plan B, she had the same chance of conceiving as a woman who had ovulated and took nothing at all. In other words, it did absolutely nothing after she had ovulated. Copper IUD might prevent implantation and can definitely prevent fertilization of an egg, but not plan B. Edit: http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-proceedings/EC/MOA Edited October 19, 2016 by kiana 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I don't understand how baking a cake is encouraging sin. A cake is not a spiritual blessing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I don't understand how baking a cake is encouraging sin. A cake is not a spiritual blessing. And, not having a cake is not going to stop people from getting married (we didn't have a cake at our (straight) wedding). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Meh, that article basically said "look, I interpret your scripture differently from you. Your interpretation is wrong!" I don't see how that is going to change anyone's mind; seems to me we can't really dictate to someone of any faith how they must interpret their scripture. I mean, I could go tell some Islamic extremist that my interpretation of the Qur'an doesn't justify their actions...but it would be kind of meaningless. We can still decide as a society to make and enforce laws against terrorism. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 These studies basically showed that if a woman had already ovulated and took plan B, she had the same chance of conceiving as a woman who had ovulated and took nothing at all. In other words, it did absolutely nothing after she had ovulated. Copper IUD might prevent implantation and can definitely prevent fertilization of an egg, but not plan B. Edit: http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-proceedings/EC/MOA Every type of IUD has the potential to prevent implantation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501086 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Every type of IUD has the potential to prevent implantation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501086 Granted -- my point was more that plan B doesn't prevent it. I haven't researched IUD's much as there doesn't seem to be as much argumentation over it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 And, not having a cake is not going to stop people from getting married (we didn't have a cake at our (straight) wedding). Generally speaking, I don't involve myself in what people in the world choose to do. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges." I'm not really interested in trying to stop people from getting married. That said, I am still responsible for my own actions. I couldn't in good conscience provide a good or service for the wedding of two homosexual people or for an unbiblical remarriage of two heterosexual people. I agree with others who have said that conservative Christians probably shouldn't be in the wedding cake business. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotherGoose Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Yep. I'm really a really conservative Christian but I've never believed the Bible told me I couldn't do business with homosexuals even though I believe homosexuality itself is sinful because the Bible clearly says so. It's an impossible standard no one could possibly live up to. If you think a wedding industry business is approving of a marriage because it provides goods and services to people getting married, then you're nuts. My mother and cousin worked in the wedding industry for years and strongly disapproved of plenty of heterosexual marriages on Biblical grounds (divorced for unbiblical reasons resulting in a legal marriage that he Bible would classify as adultery, a believer marrying an unbeliever and abuse situations) but they didn't refuse services. If you choose not to on the grounds of homosexuality, then you have to choose not to on those grounds too. Not many takers on that one. That is a great point. It's jut not as obvious when it's two heterosexuals. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I never had an insurance plan that paid for abortions and I bet many people have not. The issue wasn't with abortions, but with birth control. When we had Kaiser HMO insurance it was prominently featured in the Summary Plan Description that they pay for elective abortion with $0 co-pay. Way cheaper for Kaiser to do an abortion than to pay for 9 months of prenatal care and delivery :thumbdown: We switched to the PPO option and I have no idea whether they cover all abortions or just ones that have some sort of medical reason for them since I'd have to go searching through the full plan document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 At some point a person just needs to say no. Would you take photos for a wedding of a 60yo man marrying a 16yo as his 5th wife just because it was legal? It might be in a few years. Would you sell something to someone that would help them cheat on their spouse? You might be allowed to do these things I think that we not to or else we share in the guilt. Participation does equal endorsement, at least to some extent. Jesus says, "“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." I don't want to in any way help someone sin. Frankly, I'd rather die then knowingly help someone sin. This issue highlights to me why Christianity will always stumble against society. When we can't endorse what the world wants us to endorse conflict is just inevitable. I think that sadly, as pointed out in the article, most people aren't consistent and are willing to do endorse other unscriptural marriage but draw the line at homosexual marriage. Homosexuallity is not a special sin. Jesus also says that, "he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The lack of consistency is part of the reason why the name of Christ is being blasphemed among the nations. If we were consistent we would seem crazy and be hated but at least we wouldn't look like we just hated gay people. I absolutely agree with you that the lack of consistency is a huge problem and makes many of us seriously doubt the sincerity of the deeply held religious beliefs. But I'm a bit confused by the first bible verse you quoted. It seems to be saying that causing sin is only a problem if your enabling someone who believes in Jesus as you do. Obviously, a gay couple planning to get married does not share your religious beliefs. And while it could possibly be argued that you are endorsing the marriage, you certainly aren't causing it or even enabling it. Cake is not required for the marriage to take place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 That said, I am still responsible for my own actions. I couldn't in good conscience provide a good or service for the wedding of two homosexual people or for an unbiblical remarriage of two heterosexual people. I agree with others who have said that conservative Christians probably shouldn't be in the wedding cake business. If it were my business, I'd stop selling "wedding cakes" and change the language to "celebration cakes". That leaves my opinion about whether a couple's union is a true marriage out of it. They can have their "celebration cake" and do whatever they want with it once they leave my bakery. I wouldn't sell them a wedding cake topper with 2 brides or 2 grooms but if they wanted to purchase one elsewhere and stick it on the cake they purchased from me, that's their business. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 The morning after pill is often referred to as an abortion pill because the result of the medicine is not to allow implantation and expel the tiny human embryo. It is not the same as the RU486, though. So if your definition of the begining of human life is conception, it acts the same. Look at number three from the FDA: here is the link:http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm109795.htm ". If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work." Just sayin. It does not become an embryo until after implantation. It would be expelled as a zygote/blastocyst - a ball of indistinguishable cells. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rose Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I absolutely agree with you that the lack of consistency is a huge problem and makes many of us seriously doubt the sincerity of the deeply held religious beliefs. But I'm a bit confused by the first bible verse you quoted. It seems to be saying that causing sin is only a problem if your enabling someone who believes in Jesus as you do. Obviously, a gay couple planning to get married does not share your religious beliefs. And while it could possibly be argued that you are endorsing the marriage, you certainly aren't causing it or even enabling it. Cake is not required for the marriage to take place. I just quoted that verse because I was trying to point out the seriousness of causing someone to stumble. I don't think that Jesus was saying that it's only important to not cause a Christian to stumble but that it's OK to encourage a non-Christian to sin. He obviously cares about both. The argument that a cake isn't needed for a wedding to go on can be taken both ways. Why should some sue a baker for not providing one. It not like they somehow spoiled the wedding by refusing. They just didn't want to be a part of the preparations for something that they didn't think should happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 It does not become an embryo until after implantation. It would be expelled as a zygote/blastocyst - a ball of indistinguishable cells. Different technical term, but still post fertilization. As a side note, embryological development is fascinating and still not well understood. The processes by which a single cell differentiates into an entire organism strike me as one of the true wonders of nature. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I just quoted that verse because I was trying to point out the seriousness of causing someone to stumble. I don't think that Jesus was saying that it's only important to not cause a Christian to stumble but that it's OK to encourage a non-Christian to sin. He obviously cares about both. The argument that a cake isn't needed for a wedding to go on can be taken both ways. Why should some sue a baker for not providing one. It not like they somehow spoiled the wedding by refusing. They just didn't want to be a part of the preparations for something that they didn't think should happen.I guess I'm reading the Bible verse literally and not seeing the part about avoiding causing sin in those who don't share your religious beliefs. Otherwise, aren't you just imposing your religious beliefs on others who don't share them? That seems pretty problematic in a pluralistic , non-theocratic country. I would have to agree with earlier posters that if you are so concerned about possibly enabling sinful behavior in others, you either need to get out of the business of serving the public or choose your business more carefully. And at least in my state, the issue is that the bakers, photographers, etc are breaking public accommodation laws when they refuse service to a gay couple. They would face the same consequences if they refused service based on race, religion, gender, etc. It doesn't matter that it's only a wedding cake and not necessary for the wedding, it's the discrimination that is the issue. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I just quoted that verse because I was trying to point out the seriousness of causing someone to stumble. I don't think that Jesus was saying that it's only important to not cause a Christian to stumble but that it's OK to encourage a non-Christian to sin. He obviously cares about both. The argument that a cake isn't needed for a wedding to go on can be taken both ways. Why should some sue a baker for not providing one. It not like they somehow spoiled the wedding by refusing. They just didn't want to be a part of the preparations for something that they didn't think should happen. In the wedding cake case, the baker agreed to make the cake initially, and then refused after finding out it was for a gay wedding. As that type of discrimination is against the law in that state, they were sued and justifiably so. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I am not sure how I would handle it were I a baker and a gay couple asked for a wedding cake. But honestly why would a gay couple ask me to make them a cake? I bet even this board full of my virtual acquaintances knows I believe homosexuality to be wrong. Would any of you ask me to make a cake for a gay wedding? To me it would be different if it was say a doctor situation. I wouldn't refuse care to a gay couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I am not sure how I would handle it were I a baker and a gay couple asked for a wedding cake. But honestly why would a gay couple ask me to make them a cake? I bet even this board full of my virtual acquaintances knows I believe homosexuality to be wrong. Would any of you ask me to make a cake for a gay wedding? To me it would be different if it was say a doctor situation. I wouldn't refuse care to a gay couple. I am guessing the average customer doesn't know their baker personally. It would seem rational for someone to go to a bakery when they need a cake, and ask if the bakery makes that kind of cake. It wouldn't seem rational to most to have to go in and explain in detail their personal religious beliefs, or grill the baker about his/her beliefs, before placing the order. 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happi duck Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) I know people who have a favorite bakery and looked forward to getting their wedding cake there. One bride I know had her childhood birthday cakes from the same bakery. How sad if a favorite bakery refused someone. And again, it's illegal to pick and choose who you'll serve. If you sell xyz then you sell xyz to everyone, period. . Edited October 19, 2016 by happi duck 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I am not sure how I would handle it were I a baker and a gay couple asked for a wedding cake. But honestly why would a gay couple ask me to make them a cake? I bet even this board full of my virtual acquaintances knows I believe homosexuality to be wrong. Would any of you ask me to make a cake for a gay wedding? To me it would be different if it was say a doctor situation. I wouldn't refuse care to a gay couple. Actually, I think it is far more justifiable for a doctor to refuse to provide fertility treatments to a lesbian or surrogate hired by a gay man than it is for a bakery to refuse to bake a cake. The doctor is actually directly enabling the immorality rather than playing a nonessential and very tangential role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I am not sure how I would handle it were I a baker and a gay couple asked for a wedding cake. But honestly why would a gay couple ask me to make them a cake? I bet even this board full of my virtual acquaintances knows I believe homosexuality to be wrong. Would any of you ask me to make a cake for a gay wedding? To me it would be different if it was say a doctor situation. I wouldn't refuse care to a gay couple. How is a couple going to know your preference? Will you promenately display "homosexuality is a sin" underneath your business name on all literature and signage. Even if you did that it's not enough. If your business is serving the public then you can't refuse service. Even if the couple knows your personal feelings, you cannot refuse service. Im not sure why someone who knew would go to you, but that's not the point. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 First of all, I would make the cake, personally. But secondly, I think there needs to be a distinction in public accommodation law between selling a product and providing artistic or other services that basically require a moral and emotional buy in. And, just in general, it's pretty caviler to say so quickly that people just shouldn't have been in a wedding business to start with unless they are willing to do this generally, when in fact gay marriage has been illegal until very recently. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 In the wedding cake case, the baker agreed to make the cake initially, and then refused after finding out it was for a gay wedding. As that type of discrimination is against the law in that state, they were sued and justifiably so. The suit though wasn't for discrimination. The couple was pretty chill about that, the reason was because he divulged their names and addresses to a hate group and the childten they were foster parenting received death threats, very credible death threats! CPS had to move the children resulting in fear and trauma for them. He should have gone to jail and is dang lucky $135,000 is all he ended up paying. If he had done that to my family, I would have taken him for every penny he had and every penny he will ever make. No mercy. There shouldn't be mercy for doing something so despicable. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 A quick Google says the $135,000 was due to violating their civil rights by refusing them service? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiSweet Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 I think last time this topic came up someone told me they were a photographer who wouldn't do gay weddings but had no problem with doing weddings for divorced people and that she and/or her partner were divorced. That's when I knew there was absolutely no point to this conversation, unfortunately. People will do any mental gymnastics necessary to justify themselves and/or their behavior. As a poster upthread said, the lack of consistency just makes it look like many Christian hate gays and that is most definitely the sense I get from them. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 It does not become an embryo until after implantation. It would be expelled as a zygote/blastocyst - a ball of indistinguishable cells. As were you, years ago. The zygote is indisputably human and indisputably alive, with his or her own unique genetic code. She is a being who will continue to live and grow unless her life is ended by some specific circumstance. I am not comfortable potentially ending her life through my choice of birth control, no matter her age or stage of development. YMMV. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Long summary of their side of the story with screenshots of some of the messages they got: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25119-bittersweet-cake.html Another summary of it: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/07/sweet_cakes_lesbians.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts