Wow..another look at the whole gay cake baker idea

[skimomma]

lol, to hear a follower of Christ argue so strenuously for the ability to discriminate against her fellow man, makes me think that everything good I was ever taught about Jesus as a child must have been terribly, terribly wrong. 

 

You said it!

 

I try to stay out of these "discussions" because it always ends the same way.  And every time, my opinions of Christians decreases markedly.  Whatever happened to leaving the judgement up to God?  Isn't that in the bible somewhere?

 

I don't care how many bible verses one throws around, it is not going to make it OK to decide that one's religious beliefs should be grounds for allowing illegal discrimination of a protected group of people.  One can say something is or is not "scriptural" until they are blue in the face, but the fact is anyone can say anything is their "scriptural religious belief."  There is no one single way to interpret the bible.  There just isn't.  Everyone thinks they are "right."

 

And don't tell me to just "go to another baker."  I probably would but would also be complaining to the appropriate authorities and/or pursuing legal action.  Because if I didn't, then I would be just standing by allowing illegal discrimination.  It is not "mean," it is making sure our laws are upheld.

[FaithManor]

I think a case could be made that if a person lingered in a business in which he or she must break the law regularly in order to not violate his/her religious conscience, then that in and of itself would be a sin at least in the more strict interpretations of "appearance of evil" given that one is supposed to also obey Caesar. Thus a strong case could be made that the cake baker was engaged in a serious life of sin as it would not be possible for him to guarantee he did not endorse evil while making wedding cakes. In the last three weddings I coordinated, only one member of the couple ever talked with the cake decorator and ordered the cake. Neither of the couple picked up the cake so easily the baker could have been making a cake for a gay couple, a biracial couple, an unequally yoked couple, a second marriage, .....any number of scenarios, even someone having a ceremony in which they "marry" their dog.

 

It would seem to me that in order to be consistent one should not be making wedding/anniversary cakes, doing wedding/anniversary flowers, doing wedding/anniversary photography, invitation printing, etc.

 

Choosing to be involved in a business pursuit that has the potential to routinely put one between a rock and a hard place sounds like a sin in and of itself in terms of closely held religious beliefs.

[Lecka]

I would sell bricks to the KKK, because it wouldn't be my business what the bricks were for.

 

I would privately think they were horrible people, but I would sell them the bricks. 

 

B/c I don't think it is against the law to be in the KKK and build a monument with bricks. 

 

If they were going to commit a crime with the bricks then I think that would be different and I think I would call the police then.  Like -- if they were going to throw bricks through someone's window and told me that, then I don't think I would sell them.

 

But if they were going to go on their private property and build a KKK monument, I think that is their business. 

[Greta]

I understand your perspective and appreciate you sharing it. I suppose I would argue that if you knew someone was planning to use your morally neutral brick to celebrate something you believed to be immoral (like, say, building a monument for the KKK), you probably wouldn't sell it to them. If someone asked me for bricks for such a purpose, I would feel I was giving my tacit approval by selling them the bricks.

 

I always enjoy your presence, MercyA!  I do think there are some important differences between the cake story and this KKK analogy (one being that LGBT persons are a protected class at least in some states, and KKK members are not, another being that the amount of harm being done really isn't comparable at all), but all analogies break down at some point.  

 

ETA:  I think that I would still sell them the bricks, overcharge them obscenely, and then donate the money to the NAACP.  ;)

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Greta

[TranquilMind]

In the Oregon case, no one was sued. The Kleins were reported to the appropriate state agency for violating public accommodation laws. Just as a black person would report a violation if they were denied a service based on race. Going into the bakery, the bride had no way knowing she would be denied service based on sexual orientation. What started out as an exciting day of wedding cake shopping with her mom turned out very differently part way through the cake ordering process.

 

Gay marriage was not even legal at the time the couple targeted the Kleins, yet the Kleins got fined, unbelievably.  The Kleins did not refuse to serve the couple because of their sexual orientation under state law; the Kleins refused to do a "wedding" that was not legal, and that violated their religious beliefs.

 

 The couple had been to the bakery and had been served before.  So clearly the Kleins were not discriminating against them on the basis of sexual orientation.  They had already been customers for other things.  One of the couple had a relative that had used the bakery too.  They knew they were Christians and were not innocent of this fact.  It was plastered all over their business and website. 

 

The law seems to be shaping up to be this, that there is no freedom of religion for business owners.  The goal seems to be to punish these wedding providers for standing by their religious beliefs.    It is pretty clear that whenever there is a conflict between LGBT interests and religious beliefs, the latter will lose, despite Constitutional protection. 

 

From here:  Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

 

Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals -- but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.

 

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,†he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.â€

 

The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.

 

Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.

You may disagree with his views, but he has the right to live by his convictions and they have no right to threaten to kill his family. 

 

None of this had to happen.  They could have just gone to one of the other thousand bakeries in Portland to buy a cake. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

You know, Mercy, this analogy is pretty offensive to me.

 

Comparing the baking of a cake for a wedding celebration of two people who love and cherish each other, with the supply of bricks to neo-Nazis so they can build a monument to racial hate doesn't sit right with me at all.

 

But in each case, someone has to make a decision about something that contradicts his values and faith.  That is the similarity. 

 

[bettyandbob]

I read the hostility of posters who identify as Christian and I am embarrassed. I am a Christian. I don't believe we are supposed to judge others and discriminate.

[TranquilMind]

I would sell bricks to the KKK, because it wouldn't be my business what the bricks were for.

 

I would privately think they were horrible people, but I would sell them the bricks. 

 

B/c I don't think it is against the law to be in the KKK and build a monument with bricks. 

 

If they were going to commit a crime with the bricks then I think that would be different and I think I would call the police then.  Like -- if they were going to throw bricks through someone's window and told me that, then I don't think I would sell them.

 

But if they were going to go on their private property and build a KKK monument, I think that is their business. 

 

I would not sell them bricks, if I had knowledge of who they were and what they wanted to do with the bricks. 

 

If I had another possible buyer, guess who is getting the bricks?  Not the KKK.    Because I don't put the dollar first, and this is one of those things on which I would have to lose a sale. 

YMMV

 

[TranquilMind]

I read the hostility of posters who identify as Christian and I am embarrassed. I am a Christian. I don't believe we are supposed to judge others and discriminate.

 

I'm certainly not hostile and haven't read every post, but have not noticed any hostility other than that directed at me, when a poster told me I needed conversion therapy.

 

To me, it is merely a discussion of ideas.  I am not so quick to dismiss someone's religious faith. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks for your response, bibiche. For those who view discrimination against homosexuals as essentially the same thing as discrimination against people of a different race, I can understand the vehemence and frustration. That said, I don't think that type of comment is necessary or kind, and I'll leave it at that.

 

I agree that we live in a secular country. Christians are commanded to follow its laws (Romans 13), except in cases where it would require them to act against their conscience or Scripture (Acts 5:29). They should, of course, be expected to suffer the consequences when they do find it necessary to break the law (1 Peter 3). If Christians are unlawfully penalized, they may appeal to the government, as Paul did.

 

 

Many people do view it that way because they believe people were born that way. I do have friends who are now out and married to the same sex but when we were in elementary and high school they *tried* dating girls. It just wasn't working. It makes them miserable and it makes the girl they are dating miserable. They are happy now, some with children.  These are people I have known *my entire life* and the only reason I knew more about them than some of my classmates is because I wrote a pro-gay article in my high school newspaper. People pulled me aside and thanked me, some of them were faculty. That was twenty years ago and I am still glad I did it. 

 

There have been different discoveries made that prove that there is a physical difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.short

 

No one is comparing race to sexual preference to be unkind. It is because people *truly* believe that it is something people cannot change. I am one of them.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[HS Mom in NC]

I started but decided it wasn't worth the time (no offense). Yes, I would object to selling cakes for any unscriptural marriage. I suppose I'd need to have a questionnaire of some kind. Is this cake for a wedding between a man and a woman? Have either been married before? How many times? What was the reason for their divorce(s)? 

 

All very unpleasant, of course, which is why I wouldn't go into any wedding related business in the first place, as I've said several times in this thread.  :)

 

Thanks for responding.  I really do want to understand fully the other point of view.

 

So would that apply to all wedding related goods and services?  Catering, clothing, hair, make up, nails, fragrances, shoes, transportation (cars and planes), hotels, B&Bs, photography, jewelry, announcements, printing supplies, craft supplies, gasoline, groceries, sparklers, bubbles, DJs, venues, etc.?

 

Oops, I accidentally cut this off:

 

And then for other aspects of homosexual marriage: doulas, midwifery, obstetrics, fertility treatments, adoption (private and foster), baby/children's supplies, family photography, baby announcements, kid parties, show and tell about their homosexual family at school, private school admittance, family day events, etc.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[TranquilMind]

I think a case could be made that if a person lingered in a business in which he or she must break the law regularly in order to not violate his/her religious conscience, then that in and of itself would be a sin at least in the more strict interpretations of "appearance of evil" given that one is supposed to also obey Caesar. Thus a strong case could be made that the cake baker was engaged in a serious life of sin as it would not be possible for him to guarantee he did not endorse evil while making wedding cakes. In the last three weddings I coordinated, only one member of the couple ever talked with the cake decorator and ordered the cake. Neither of the couple picked up the cake so easily the baker could have been making a cake for a gay couple, a biracial couple, an unequally yoked couple, a second marriage, .....any number of scenarios, even someone having a ceremony in which they "marry" their dog.

 

It would seem to me that in order to be consistent one should not be making wedding/anniversary cakes, doing wedding/anniversary flowers, doing wedding/anniversary photography, invitation printing, etc.

 

Choosing to be involved in a business pursuit that has the potential to routinely put one between a rock and a hard place sounds like a sin in and of itself in terms of closely held religious beliefs.

 

What?  What  cake baker was engaged in a "serious life of sin"?  One had been a baker for 40 years, the guy who runs Masterpiece cake shop?  He didn't violate any laws making wedding cakes for decades, until suddenly, marriage was redefined to mean something else last year.   How can you know he engaged in a "serious life of sin"? 

 

I'm not following you here.  There was no conflict at all for decades, until the state decided that LGBT rights were paramount to religious faith. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

What?  What  cake baker was engaged in a "serious life of sin"?  One had been a baker for 40 years, the guy who runs Masterpiece cake shop?  He didn't violate any laws making wedding cakes for decades, until suddenly, marriage was redefined to mean something else last year.   How can you know he engaged in a "serious life of sin"? 

 

I'm not following you here.  There was no conflict at all for decades, until the state decided that LGBT rights were paramount to religious faith. 

 

 

Hm...

 

Civil Rights are paramount to faith in our government, our government has separation of church and state.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Greta]

You know, Mercy, this analogy is pretty offensive to me.

 

Comparing the baking of a cake for a wedding celebration of two people who love and cherish each other, with the supply of bricks to neo-Nazis so they can build a monument to racial hate doesn't sit right with me at all.

 

I certainly understand and respect your reaction, but knowing what a gentle, kind person MercyA is, I don't believe she meant it that way.  I believe her intention was to put forth an example that would make me think twice about selling my hypothetical bricks, but not to imply that the example was the same level of "wrongness".

 

These conversations are hard.   :sad:

[TranquilMind]

Hm...

 

Civil Rights are paramount to faith in our government, our government has separation of church and state.

It does, but our government has no right to dictate that one cannot act in accordance with his own faith in his business.

 

This is not a civil rights issue but that train has been co-opted erroneously. 

 

[FaithManor]

Gay marriage was not even legal at the time the couple targeted the Kleins, yet the Kleins got fined, unbelievably. The Kleins did not refuse to serve the couple because of their sexual orientation under state law; the Kleins refused to do a "wedding" that was not legal, and that violated their religious beliefs.

 

The couple had been to the bakery and had been served before. So clearly the Kleins were not discriminating against them on the basis of sexual orientation. They had already been customers for other things. One of the couple had a relative that had used the bakery too. They knew they were Christians and were not innocent of this fact. It was plastered all over their business and website.

 

The law seems to be shaping up to be this, that there is no freedom of religion for business owners. The goal seems to be to punish these wedding providers for standing by their religious beliefs. It is pretty clear that whenever there is a conflict between LGBT interests and religious beliefs, the latter will lose, despite Constitutional protection.

 

From here: Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

 

Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals -- but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.

 

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,†he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.â€

 

The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.

 

Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.

You may disagree with his views, but he has the right to live by his convictions and they have no right to threaten to kill his family.

 

None of this had to happen. They could have just gone to one of the other thousand bakeries in Portland to buy a cake.

Interesting that despite having been told three times in this thread that the judgment against them of $135000 was because Klein released the couple's address to hate groups resulting in death threats against the foster children in their care resulting in the children being ripped from their parents and put in emergency placement to insure their safety, you have refused to acknowledge the facts of the case and now want sympathy for Klein and their children.

 

Well guess what! In my book ALL death threats are reprehensible, and doubly so aganst children. So what happened to the Klein children is BAD just ad what happened to the lesbian couple's children is bad.

 

But it really appears from the way you post that only the Kleins are victims, and well, those poor lesbians' kids are of no consequence.

[Slartibartfast]

It does, but our government has no right to dictate that one cannot act in accordance with his own faith in his business.

 

This is not a civil rights issue but that train has been co-opted erroneously. 

 

It most certainly is a Civil Rights issue. There is nothing erroneous about it.

[Laura Corin]

Laws change and people go out off business or alter their business. It happens. It must be terribly difficult for those involved, but it's inevitable as societies change.

 

Many pubs in Britain have gone out of business due to tighter laws on smoking and drinking. That's sad but necessary.

 

So maybe you have been making wedding cakes for forty years and then the definition of marriage changes and you are no longer happy making them. Time to join the pub owners in changing the business or building a new one.

[FaithManor]

It does, but our government has no right to dictate that one cannot act in accordance with his own faith in his business.

 

This is not a civil rights issue but that train has been co-opted erroneously.

Actually it does have the right. Religious beliefs can be interepreted to make the practice thereof include sex trafficking, child marriage, polygamy, theft, abuse, and murder closely held beliefs which the government outlaws such behavior without exception and any religious person practicing such things will face the music if caught. Your right to your beliefs only go so far as your own body, your own property. They do not get to override everyone else.

 

God help us if your definition became law because the unconscionable acts of many would be protected rights. No thanks. I'd rather have no religious freedom than have that!!!

[ktgrok]

You are again conflating two separate issues.  This is specifically tied to the scriptural basis for marriage. That's it.  Race has nothing to do with this. 

 

Scripture does not say that serving nonwhite people food nor drinking from the same water fountain is an abomination.

 

 

Not separate issues. Some people use their religious beliefs to say they can't serve a cake to certain  people (homosexual)  for their wedding. 

 

Others use scripture to say they can't serve a cake to certain people (interracial) for their wedding. 

 

SAME THING. And they also use those same religious beliefs to say that there shouldn't be intermingling, including at water fountains or dinner tables. 

 

Scripture doesn't say specifically that you can't serve nonwhite people food, but it also doesn't say specifically that you can't bake a cake for a gay wedding. In both cases people are making interpretations and applying them to modern life. Or should laws only protect Tranquil Mind's version of religion and no one else?

[HomeAgain]

I just want to point out on the subject of interracial marriage and scripture - Bob Jones U finally dropped their ban on interracial dating in 2000.  They held that it was scripture-based, and only changed it because the policy came under national scrutiny during the presidential debate.   

 

 

Just because they believed it to be a biblically sound policy doesn't mean it was.  Hatred and discrimination never is.

[Lecka]

When I say I would sell the bricks, it is not bc I put money first.

 

It is because it is not my business to pick and choose my customers.

 

If I am not going to discriminate, I am not going to discriminate.

 

I think it should be one standard across the board.

 

It shouldn't be that some people are unpopular and so they are not allowed to buy bricks without greater expense and hassle compared to everybody else who isn't being discriminated against.

 

It is just not fair.

[TranquilMind]

Interesting that despite having been told three times in this thread that the judgment against them of $135000 was because Klein released the couple's address to hate groups resulting in death threats against the foster children in their care resulting in the children being ripped from their parents and put in emergency placement to insure their safety, you have refused to acknowledge the facts of the case and now want sympathy for Klein and their children.

 

Well guess what! In my book ALL death threats are reprehensible, and doubly so aganst children. So what happened to the Klein children is BAD just ad what happened to the lesbian couple's children is bad.

 

But it really appears from the way you post that only the Kleins are victims, and well, those poor lesbians' kids are of no consequence.

 

You have several facts wrong.  The woman filed a Complaint that came with a disclaimer that it was NOT private.  Klein received the Complaint and posted it on Facebook.  Aaron Klein had a whopping 17 Facebook friends  (bad idea of course, to have not blocked out names, but I post nothing personal ever).  

 

The facts are inaccurately summarized in favor of the women.   Sounds like they are extremely emotionally messed up, according to the complaint and all of this mess in their lives and emotional trauma is - of course- attributed to this one brief meeting in the cake shop in January 2013 where the Kleins said they don't do same sex weddings.    They immediately found someone else to do a cake.   One of the WOMEN's (not the Kleins) posted something online that mentioned that they had foster kids and she addressed it and asked her to remove the comments.    The womens' attorney then went public, arranged fundraisers, etc. The women publicly identified themselves.    There is a whole lot about messed up childhoods and parties who abused the women.  One of the women's sister supported the Kleins, which of course, sent her into further tailspins, also blamed on the Kleins.

 

They went through a ceremony but it was not a legal ceremony because gay marriage was not legal in Oregon.  Complaint was filed.  Etc.  Lots of major drama. 

 

 They adopted the girls. They did not lose them.

 

Here is the complaint.  http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[wendyroo]

I understand your perspective and appreciate you sharing it. I suppose I would argue that if you knew someone was planning to use your morally neutral brick to celebrate something you believed to be immoral (like, say, building a monument for the KKK), you probably wouldn't sell it to them. If someone asked me for bricks for such a purpose, I would feel I was giving my tacit approval by selling them the bricks.

 

I would sell them the bricks because their plans to build a KKK monument (assuming they are doing so legally) are none of my business.

 

I would allow a couple to check into my hotel even if I knew they were using the room to have an affair.

 

I would print copies of a political flier even if it seemed to be full of misinformation.

 

I would sell a car to a Islamic woman even if her husband forbid her to drive.

 

I would sell someone an American flag even if I knew they were taking it to a protest to burn it.

 

America...the land of the free and the home of the brave.  I get to be free, but in return I have to bravely extend that freedom to others.

 

Wendy

Edited October 19, 2016 by wendyroo

[TranquilMind]

Not separate issues. Some people use their religious beliefs to say they can't serve a cake to certain  people (homosexual)  for their wedding. 

 

Others use scripture to say they can't serve a cake to certain people (interracial) for their wedding. 

 

SAME THING. And they also use those same religious beliefs to say that there shouldn't be intermingling, including at water fountains or dinner tables. 

 

Scripture doesn't say specifically that you can't serve nonwhite people food, but it also doesn't say specifically that you can't bake a cake for a gay wedding. In both cases people are making interpretations and applying them to modern life. Or should laws only protect Tranquil Mind's version of religion and no one else?

They are indeed entirely separate issues you are attempting to combine. 

 

Of course scripture does not say not to bake a cake "for a gay wedding". There is no such thing, except in the secular world as of last year (here). 

 

There is marriage and then there are other relationships. 

[TranquilMind]

I would sell them the bricks because their plans to build a KKK monument (assuming they are doing so legally) are none of my business.

 

I would allow a couple to check into my hotel even if I knew they were using the room to have an affair.

 

I would print copies of a political flier even if it seemed to be full of misinformation.

 

I would sell a car to a Islamic woman even if her husband forbid her to drive.

 

I would sell someone an American flag even if I knew they were taking it to a protest to burn it.

 

American...the land of the free and the home of the brave.  I get to be free, but in return I have to bravely extend that freedom to others.

 

Wendy

The land of the free except if you are a Christian wedding provider confronted by  an LGBT activist. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[ktgrok]

They are indeed entirely separate issues you are attempting to combine. 

 

Of course scripture does not say not to bake a cake "for a gay wedding". There is no such thing, except in the secular world as of last year (here). 

 

There is marriage and then there are other relationships. 

 

Oh, okay. Can you quote me the place where it says not to make a cake for a not quite wedding?

[TranquilMind]

Oh, okay. Can you quote me the place where it says not to make a cake for a not quite wedding?

I can quote you a lot of proscriptions against homosexuality, but you aren't really asking. It isn't about the cake. They could have picked up a generic cake at the desk if they just wanted a cake. 

[TranquilMind]

Laws change and people go out off business or alter their business. It happens. It must be terribly difficult for those involved, but it's inevitable as societies change.

 

Many pubs in Britain have gone out of business due to tighter laws on smoking and drinking. That's sad but necessary.

 

So maybe you have been making wedding cakes for forty years and then the definition of marriage changes and you are no longer happy making them. Time to join the pub owners in changing the business or building a new one.

That's what the one in Colorado was forced to do.  Now he makes wedding cakes for no one because of this. 

 

He sounds like he was happy making wedding cakes, but they would not permit him to stick to wedding cakes anymore.

[HomeAgain]

I can quote you a lot of proscriptions against homosexuality, but you aren't really asking. It isn't about the cake. They could have picked up a generic cake at the desk if they just wanted a cake. 

 

Actually, there are 6, and quite questionable in interpretation.

 

However, you are saying that the bakers would have been totally fine with baking and decorating a cake, setting it out for sale, and selling it knowing it would be used to celebrate the union of two women?  And this is different..........how?

[TranquilMind]

Actually it does have the right. Religious beliefs can be interepreted to make the practice thereof include sex trafficking, child marriage, polygamy, theft, abuse, and murder closely held beliefs which the government outlaws such behavior without exception and any religious person practicing such things will face the music if caught. Your right to your beliefs only go so far as your own body, your own property. They do not get to override everyone else.

 

God help us if your definition became law because the unconscionable acts of many would be protected rights. No thanks. I'd rather have no religious freedom than have that!!!

 

God help us if the right to a wedding cake is curtailed in any way.  Priorities. Their right to have a cake by someone who declined their business outweighed their belief to adhere to their scriptural practices.

 

Throwing in all the criminal behavior at the beginning is just a red herring.

 

[Lecka]

It is a right to the same services as other people.

 

It is pretty important.

 

I don't find it frivolous.

[Slartibartfast]

Hm..I am not sure the sarcasm is well placed in a thread about Civil Rights.

 

That seems disturbing.

[Slartibartfast]

God help us if a certain seat on the bus is curtailed in any way. God help us if a certain seat in a school room is curtailed in any way. God help us if eating at a lunch counter that doesn't want us there is curtailed in any way.

[wendyroo]

That's what the one in Colorado was forced to do.  Now he makes wedding cakes for no one because of this. 

 

He sounds like he was happy making wedding cakes, but they would not permit him to stick to wedding cakes anymore.

 

He certainly could continue to make wedding cakes, he just had to accept that he couldn't control what people did with them.  They might serve them at a Christian wedding reception, but they also might use them for a prop in a play or feed them to their dog or use them to celebrate a birthday or eat the whole thing themselves and commit gluttony or anything else they wanted to do once the cake was bought and paid for and legally theirs.

 

Wendy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Gay marriage was not even legal at the time the couple targeted the Kleins, yet the Kleins got fined, unbelievably.  The Kleins did not refuse to serve the couple because of their sexual orientation under state law; the Kleins refused to do a "wedding" that was not legal, and that violated their religious beliefs.

 

 The couple had been to the bakery and had been served before.  So clearly the Kleins were not discriminating against them on the basis of sexual orientation.  They had already been customers for other things.  One of the couple had a relative that had used the bakery too.  They knew they were Christians and were not innocent of this fact.  It was plastered all over their business and website. 

 

The law seems to be shaping up to be this, that there is no freedom of religion for business owners.  The goal seems to be to punish these wedding providers for standing by their religious beliefs.    It is pretty clear that whenever there is a conflict between LGBT interests and religious beliefs, the latter will lose, despite Constitutional protection. 

 

From here:  Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

 

Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals -- but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.

 

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,†he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.â€

 

The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.

 

Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.

You may disagree with his views, but he has the right to live by his convictions and they have no right to threaten to kill his family. 

 

For the record, gay marriage was not illegal -it simply wasn't recognized as valid by some states and the federal government. Oregon had an anti-discrimination law on the books the prohibited denying goods and services to gays and lesbians.  Whether or not the cake was to be eaten at a reception celebrating a union not recognized by law was not relevant.

[Greta]

It's not a kind comparison.

 

These conversations aren't hard at all. 

 

If you offer a service for profit, you must offer it to all.

 

If you can't do that, then don't offer the service for profit.

 

 

I agree.  I just think Mercy is a kind person, so I only wanted to defend her intentions.  I'm sorry if I should have stayed out of it.  These conversations are hard for me, maybe not for anyone else.  :)  I feel like I fumble a lot.

 

As to your last two lines, I agree with you wholeheartedly and completely.  

[JumpyTheFrog]

I once went to a salon to get my eyebrows threaded. It was in a plaza with many South Asian food and clothing businesses. The window had a sign that said no men were allowed inside, presumably because Muslim women might be there getting their haircut. Are they violating public accomdation laws? My DH had to wait outside for me.

[Slartibartfast]

I once went to a salon to get my eyebrows threaded. It was in a plaza with many South Asian food and clothing businesses. The window had a sign that said no men were allowed inside, presumably because Muslim women might be there getting their haircut. Are they violating public accomdation laws? My DH had to wait outside for me.

 

 

I think if a man wanted to get their haircut or eyebrows done they could just let them know so they could schedule around it?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Greta]

There's a long and unattractive history of analogies involving  LBGT people and (neo) Nazis. 

 

 

 

I honestly did not know that.  I am dumbfounded.

 

 

Here's a recent one from AU.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/22/we-can-stop-wondering-how-damaging-the-plebiscite-campaign-will-be-with-bill-leaks-latest-cartoon-it-has-already-begun

 

Well, that's just  :ack2:

[ktgrok]

I can quote you a lot of proscriptions against homosexuality, but you aren't really asking. It isn't about the cake. They could have picked up a generic cake at the desk if they just wanted a cake. 

 

Right. Places that say homosexuality is bad. I am not saying you should have homosexual sex. I asked for the scripture that said you couldn't make a wedding cake for homosexuals. 

 

Choosing not to have homosexual sex I am not arguing with, I'm asking for the verse that says you can't make cake for those that do. 

[bibiche]

I agree that we live in a secular country. Christians are commanded to follow its laws (Romans 13), except in cases where it would require them to act against their conscience or Scripture (Acts 5:29). They should, of course, be expected to suffer the consequences when they do find it necessary to break the law (1 Peter 3). If Christians are unlawfully penalized, they may appeal to the government, as Paul did.

I'm glad that Christians expect to suffer the consequences of their illegal actions. If they are so ready to do that, then, why is this even a matter of discussion? You break the law, you suffer the consequences. The end.

 

As for the persecution of the LGBT community by certain flavors of Christians, this I confess I will never understand. You say you do it out of love, is that it? You judge people to be immoral because of the way they were born, your views encourage horrible, vicious discrimination. Many in the LGBT community have been murdered, many, many more are tormented and bullied until they take their own lives. Where is the godliness in that? How do Christians justify the torment and death of innocent people who are just being who your God apparently created them? Discriminating against anyone in the LGBT community just spreads the hatred and the unhappiness and the death and you are complicit in that Here. Now. In THIS life. How is that holy? How is that good?

[JumpyTheFrog]

I think if a man wanted to get their haircut or eyebrows done they could just let them know so they could schedule around it?

I guess the man would have to call because they wouldn't want him inside making the appointment. What if they said, "No, we don't allow any men."

[MyLittleBears]

So...those that staged sit ins at diners that wouldn't serve black people shouldn't have done that? Should we have kept separate drinking fountains too?

 

 

NO. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth please. (I am not white, if that is your assumption)

 

 

I am not saying that the lady was right. In fact I don't think it was Christian of her.  I know I would not have refused them the cake myself. I'm just saying forcing her to somehow seem wrong to. I honestly don't know what the right answer is.

[ktgrok]

NO. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth please. (I am not white, if that is your assumption)

 

 

I am not saying that the lady was right. In fact I don't think it was Christian of her.  I know I would not have refused them the cake myself. I'm just saying forcing her to somehow seem wrong to. I honestly don't know what the right answer is.

 

Well, the only thing that helped in the past was forcing. ideally people would just behave, but laws are there for when they do't. 

[MercyA]

You know, Mercy, this analogy is pretty offensive to me.

 

Comparing the baking of a cake for a wedding celebration of two people who love and cherish each other, with the supply of bricks to neo-Nazis so they can build a monument to racial hate doesn't sit right with me at all.

 

Ah, I'm sorry, Sadie. I wanted to respond to Greta's brick analogy, and I tried to think of someone to whom I wouldn't sell bricks, due to conscience's sake. I should have been more thoughtful. I did think about adding a disclaimer (something along the lines of not equating homosexual people with the KKK), but I guess I was in too much of a rush. I sincerely apologize.

 

On a side note, I was at a Bible study tonight and I asked the group for their views on the Cake Question. My husband, whom I respect more than anyone else in this world, disagreed with me, as did others whom I respect. I am about 75% convinced I was wrong. I'll come back to this later.

 

ETA: I have edited the offensive post.

Edited October 20, 2016 by MercyA

[FaithManor]

God help us if a certain seat on the bus is curtailed in any way. God help us if a certain seat in a school room is curtailed in any way. God help us if eating at a lunch counter that doesn't want us there is curtailed in any way.

Exactly this!!! Which unfortunately some people do not get.

[MercyA]

Many people do view it that way because they believe people were born that way. I do have friends who are now out and married to the same sex but when we were in elementary and high school they *tried* dating girls. It just wasn't working. It makes them miserable and it makes the girl they are dating miserable. They are happy now, some with children.  These are people I have known *my entire life* and the only reason I knew more about them than some of my classmates is because I wrote a pro-gay article in my high school newspaper. People pulled me aside and thanked me, some of them were faculty. That was twenty years ago and I am still glad I did it. 

 

There have been different discoveries made that prove that there is a physical difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.short

 

No one is comparing race to sexual preference to be unkind. It is because people *truly* believe that it is something people cannot change. I am one of them.

 

I do believe that many people are born with the tendency to be attracted to the same sex. I would never argue that is not true.

[MercyA]

Thanks for responding.  I really do want to understand fully the other point of view.

 

So would that apply to all wedding related goods and services?  Catering, clothing, hair, make up, nails, fragrances, shoes, transportation (cars and planes), hotels, B&Bs, photography, jewelry, announcements, printing supplies, craft supplies, gasoline, groceries, sparklers, bubbles, DJs, venues, etc.?

 

Oops, I accidentally cut this off:

 

And then for other aspects of homosexual marriage: doulas, midwifery, obstetrics, fertility treatments, adoption (private and foster), baby/children's supplies, family photography, baby announcements, kid parties, show and tell about their homosexual family at school, private school admittance, family day events, etc.

 

I don't think I'm the one to ask on this now. I'm considering if I might have been wrong. 

[ktgrok]

I don't think I'm the one to ask on this now. I'm considering if I might have been wrong. 

 

Nothing wrong with realizing an initial opinion may need more thought. I hugely admire you for that, and being willing to give it another look. That's awesome, no matter what you end up believing about it.