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

[TranquilMind]

Even if they did, you still wouldn't have to provide a service to them if you did not provide it to anyone else.

 

A printer could refuse to print porn or refuse to print religious literature or refuse to print baby pictures.  As long as they have the same rules for everyone, they are perfectly within the law.

 

Christian bakers aren't being asked to make homosexual wedding cakes, they are being asked to make regular wedding cakes, the same ones they make all the time, for people who happen to be homosexuals.  If a baker comes into work to find an order for their top-selling wedding cake, then public accommodation laws simply require that they make the cake irregardless of the buyer's age, race, color, creed, gender or gender identification.  Just make the cake, exchange it for money; it is a business transaction.

 

Wendy

 

No, they aren't being asked to make "homosexual cakes".  They are being asked to make "wedding"cakes for what cannot be a wedding scripturally.  This is the difference that everyone keeps overlooking.  It isn't about the cake.  It is about the meaning of marriage.

 

If I'm a traditional wedding photographer, for example,  and all of the sudden society suddenly decides that "wedding photography" should now include photos of the couples in bed, because hey, who waits until the wedding night, I should be free to decline this new meaning of what I do and stick to my wedding photography of the couple and their families in public.  Yet under this reasoning, if people get a whim that "wedding photography" means photos of the to-be-married couple in bed, everyone should be forced to accept this new meaning. 

 

 

Why can't they decline?  At the time all of these cake cases arose, "homosexual marriage" wasn't even a legal thing.  Now it is legal, but it is still a ceremony in which some do not wish to play any role and a tolerant society would accept these variant views.  Why isn't that tolerance extended to these people? 

It isn't as if there is a shortage of cakes, and they can only be obtained by one large company that controls everything. 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

A wedding isn't a religious ceremony (at least, not all weddings are). So, refusing to sell a cake for a secular wedding isn't a religious issue.

 

Most are religious ceremonies and held in churches.

 

If not, personal decisions should rule.  You should be free to accept or decline the business you want to accept or decline and in reality, you are, but you have to be careful not to enrage the PC police.  Bakeries in particular have been targeted. 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

I read it.  And I also read my post and wonder where you went awry.

 

It is why Ezra 10 1:4 was often used to justify the laws in this country banning interracial marriage.

 

 

 

 

Side note: I also am appalled at a community that instructs their people to divorce en masse and cast out their families in the name of God.  Guess anything is okay if you believe hard enough that you'll get an eternal reward after hurting those on earth.

 

Well, it was used inaccurately then, because Ezra 10 does not speak to interracial marriage, but only to the religious dilution of the faith of the Israelites when they married PAGAN wives, which they were prohibited from doing from the beginning?

 

I'm not sure why you simply restated what you said. 

 

There is no justification.  Please show me where this is argued.

It is like me attempting to justify my faith decision by citing someone else's racial beliefs.  ?!?

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, they aren't being asked to make "homosexual cakes".  They are being asked to make "wedding"cakes for what cannot be a wedding scripturally.  This is the difference that everyone keeps overlooking.  It isn't about the cake.  It is about the meaning of marriage.

 

If I'm a traditional wedding photographer, for example,  and all of the sudden society suddenly decides that "wedding photography" should now include photos of the couples in bed, because hey, who waits until the wedding night, I should be free to decline this new meaning of what I do and stick to my wedding photography of the couple and their families in public.  Yet under this reasoning, if people get a whim that "wedding photography" means photos of the to-be-married couple in bed, everyone should be forced to accept this new meaning. 

 

 

Why can't they decline?  At the time all of these cake cases arose, "homosexual marriage" wasn't even a legal thing.  Now it is legal, but it is still a ceremony in which some do not wish to play any role and a tolerant society would accept these variant views.  Why isn't that tolerance extended to these people? 

It isn't as if there is a shortage of cakes, and they can only be obtained by one large company that controls everything. 

 

 

It is about the cake.  And again, in the secular sphere, it doesn't matter if a wedding is "scriptural" or not.

The second bolded is patently absurd and, as usual, demonstrates a misunderstanding of civil rights law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And FTR, if I wanted to buy a wedding cake so I could have a tea party by myself in the backyard, I can't imagine any baker would give a rat's behind.

[TranquilMind]

It is about the cake.  And again, in the secular sphere, it doesn't matter if a wedding is "scriptural" or not.

The second bolded is patently absurd and, as usual, demonstrates a misunderstanding of civil rights law.

 

Wrong on both counts, as usual. 

 

Not about the cake in itself in any way.  

 

Not absurd at all.  25 years ago, even imagining that bakers would be successfully sued for failing to make cakes for weddings between two people of the same gender.  Laughable.  Impossible.

 

Here we are. 

[TranquilMind]

And FTR, if I wanted to buy a wedding cake so I could have a tea party by myself in the backyard, I can't imagine any baker would give a rat's behind.

 

Right.

That has nothing to do with what we are discussing, but sure, you can buy a wedding cake for a tea party.  Weird, but you could do it I guess, and a baker who didn't have a previous engagement would be happy to sell it to you.  I bet if it were between your wedding cake for a tea party, and a legitimate wedding, he'd take the wedding job, but who knows. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, it was used inaccurately then, because Ezra 10 does not speak to interracial marriage, but only to the religious dilution of the faith of the Israelites when they married PAGAN wives, which they were prohibited from doing from the beginning?

 

I'm not sure why you simply restated what you said. 

 

There is no justification.  Please show me where this is argued.

It is like me attempting to justify my faith decision by citing someone else's racial beliefs.  ?!?

 

 

Her point, which is quite clear, is that others have interpreted that verse differently than you do, and used it to justify anti-miscegenation laws throughout the south.  The fact that your interpretation differs demonstrates why religious texts shouldn't be used as the justification of secular laws, as interpretations of religious texts are, well...interpretations.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Right.

That has nothing to do with what we are discussing, but sure, you can buy a wedding cake for a tea party.  Weird, but you could do it I guess, and a baker who didn't have a previous engagement would be happy to sell it to you.  I bet if it were between your wedding cake for a tea party, and a legitimate wedding, he'd take the wedding job, but who knows. 

 

So then wedding cakes aren't just for scriptural weddings.

[TranquilMind]

Her point, which is quite clear, is that others have interpreted that verse differently than you do, and used it to justify anti-miscegenation laws throughout the south.  The fact that your interpretation differs demonstrates why religious texts shouldn't be used as the justification of secular laws, as interpretations of religious texts are, well...interpretations.

 

The difference is that I know what I'm talking about, in reference to scripture.  The poster who used Ezra  just threw a passage  unrelated to race out there and thought it might fly. It didn't.  It was about not mixing PAGAN beliefs with God's commandments to the Israelites. 

 

[TranquilMind]

So then wedding cakes aren't just for scriptural weddings.

 

You can call it whatever you want, crazy as it might be. 

 

It means something to some bakers, so some might decline your tea party "wedding cake" and do a real wedding instead.  Others will be happy to take your money, no matter how crazy it sounds. 

 

[ktgrok]

The difference is that I know what I'm talking about, in reference to scripture.  The poster who used Ezra  just threw a passage  unrelated to race out there and thought it might fly. It didn't.  It was about not mixing PAGAN beliefs with God's commandments to the Israelites. 

 

And yet many many many people used it, including pastors, to prevent interracial marriages. That's not what the verse says, but people can and have interpreted it that way. 

 

Just like there is no verse that outlaws selling merchandise to a gay couple, even for a gay wedding. And yet, people will interpret versus that are about other things, to say that the Bible is against it. 

 

SAME THING. 

[Janeway]

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)

They still do not prevent their employees from purchasing it. And the morning after pill does work after ovulation, just not 2 weeks after. And the price of the morning after pill is no higher than a usual copay for birth control. And way less than the cost of copay for someone who has cancer. So, I think it is crazy and inconsistent to make employers pay for the morning after pill.

[TranquilMind]

And yet many many many people used it, including pastors, to prevent interracial marriages. That's not what the verse says, but people can and have interpreted it that way. 

 

Just like there is no verse that outlaws selling merchandise to a gay couple, even for a gay wedding. And yet, people will interpret versus that are about other things, to say that the Bible is against it. 

 

SAME THING. 

 

Again, it isn't about the cake.  Call and ask for a birthday cake and you will get one.   You can get a wedding cake from any baker anywhere who will take the job. What you could not do prior to recent events that drove several bakeries out of business is force a Christian baker to make a "wedding cake" for what cannot be a wedding in his faith according to scripture.   Now you can. 

 

 

2 Peter: 2:

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. ² Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers^[ the way of truth will be maligned.

 

So people have twisted clear proscriptions against Israelites intermarrying Pagans into something it doesn't say, which you admit here?   That doesn't make it right or ok or usable for that purpose.  That just means they can't read or don't understand what they are reading. 

 

It's really sad.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The difference is that I know what I'm talking about, in reference to scripture.  The poster who used Ezra  just threw a passage  unrelated to race out there and thought it might fly. It didn't.  It was about not mixing PAGAN beliefs with God's commandments to the Israelites. 

 

Those that cited that verse in arguing against interracial also said they knew what they were talking about.

 

Which brings us back again to why we don't use religious texts to define secular law.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wrong on both counts, as usual. 

 

Not about the cake in itself in any way.  

 

Not absurd at all.  25 years ago, even imagining that bakers would be successfully sued for failing to make cakes for weddings between two people of the same gender.  Laughable.  Impossible.

 

Here we are. 

 

How am I wrong?  Secular laws aren't dependent upon scriptural definitions of weddings.

 

80 years it would have been laughable to think a hotel could be sued for refusing service to African Americans.  Ahhhh...sweet, sweet progress.

 

I am guessing you would have been bemoaning the poor bigots who opened hotels when discrimination was legal and then faced the horror of being forced to serve everyone.

[Onceuponatime]

Well, it was used inaccurately then, because Ezra 10 does not speak to interracial marriage, but only to the religious dilution of the faith of the Israelites when they married PAGAN wives, which they were prohibited from doing from the beginning?

 

I'm not sure why you simply restated what you said.

 

There is no justification. Please show me where this is argued.

It is like me attempting to justify my faith decision by citing someone else's racial beliefs. ?!?

 

So, should christian baker be able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple who were of different religions, especially one christian, one not? What about a Jew and a Hindu?

 

Just curious.

[luuknam]

You can call it whatever you want, crazy as it might be. 

 

It means something to some bakers, so some might decline your tea party "wedding cake" and do a real wedding instead.  Others will be happy to take your money, no matter how crazy it sounds.

 

Now, if anyone can find a baker who absolutely only bakes wedding cakes for scriptural weddings (of whichever religion they happen to adhere to), then maybe they'd have a case. But so far I haven't heard of any bakers who do. Bakers who make "tea party" wedding cakes and dog wedding cakes and wedding cakes for divorcees getting remarried etc etc etc can also make wedding cakes for gay couples. And if they don't like it, they can call it something different - nobody says they have to call it a *wedding* cake. I'm sure most people would be happy enough with a beautiful and yummy three tier cake whatever the baker calls it.

[Frances]

Now, if anyone can find a baker who absolutely only bakes wedding cakes for scriptural weddings (of whichever religion they happen to adhere to), then maybe they'd have a case. But so far I haven't heard of any bakers who do. Bakers who make "tea party" wedding cakes and dog wedding cakes and wedding cakes for divorcees getting remarried etc etc etc can also make wedding cakes for gay couples. And if they don't like it, they can call it something different - nobody says they have to call it a *wedding* cake. I'm sure most people would be happy enough with a beautiful and yummy three tier cake whatever the baker calls it.

Plus, isn't it likely that at least a part of most bakers' business is enabling gluttony? If you're going to be consistent, how do you ensure against that?

[TranquilMind]

So, should christian baker be able to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple who were of different religions, especially one christian, one not? What about a Jew and a Hindu?

 

Just curious.

 

Sure.  He should be able to stand on his own conscience in his own business, and accept the business he wants.  Scripture says we should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers but it isn't an impossibility in scripture like this. 

 

I can't imagine that the baker would ever know, as this isn't a typical discussion that occurs in ordering a wedding cake.  But if the people made an issue of it, especially if proudly bragging that each was going to get the other to convert sooner or later, I can imagine cases in which I wouldn't want to be involved.

[TranquilMind]

Now, if anyone can find a baker who absolutely only bakes wedding cakes for scriptural weddings (of whichever religion they happen to adhere to), then maybe they'd have a case. But so far I haven't heard of any bakers who do. Bakers who make "tea party" wedding cakes and dog wedding cakes and wedding cakes for divorcees getting remarried etc etc etc can also make wedding cakes for gay couples. And if they don't like it, they can call it something different - nobody says they have to call it a *wedding* cake. I'm sure most people would be happy enough with a beautiful and yummy three tier cake whatever the baker calls it.

Not a baker so I have no idea what Christian bakers will do or not do and how consistently.  I think they should decide.   I am all for consistency though. 

 

[Janeway]

Infertility is life destroying and insurance is not required to cover that. And even when it covers it, it is at such a low rate that most people cannot afford it even then. Why are people so up in arms about requiring the coverage of abortions and morning after pills when they are not wanting to require employers to cover fertility? 

 

I paid about $100 for my mammogram the other day. I paid thousands for IVF. My insurance covered it, but I still had to pay 30% and go to the doctor my insurance said I had to go to. Despite there being many REs, there were only 3 on my insurance. Most insurances do not cover IF. My Deplin has been taken off my insurance so I pay cash or do not get it at all. I have a friend with Lupus who can no longer get her medications. I know others whose kids have neuro/psychological issues who cannot get the meds there anymore. And people get up in arms about trying to force an employer to cover abortions and morning after pills? I think it is just a sign of the age of entitlement. Pay for your own birth control and abortions. Your employer paid you for your work and that is enough. Considering the work ethic I see today, it takes 2 people to do the job it used to take one person to do. But regardless, I am just tired of people moaning and groaning about birth control. Money does not grow on trees. Insurances have their limits. And it would not hurt people to take personal accountability rather than whine. Just wait until one of these people in the "free birth control generation" gets old enough to need a mammogram. Let's watch them whine then too. 

[TranquilMind]

Plus, isn't it likely that at least a part of most bakers' business is enabling gluttony? If you're going to be consistent, how do you ensure against that?

 

Oh come on.  The gluttony rests squarely on the one engaging in it.  You will see skinny and fat people at most weddings.  It's on them, not on others to decide what they should eat and how much. 

In its proper place, cake is a rare treat.  If you eat way too much, it's on you. 

 

My husband makes AMAZING cakes (and all sorts of baked goods) from scratch.  I have had to limit this to major occasions only, or we'd be 300 pounds.   I didn't even have it for my last birthday.  We didn't have a pan small enough.  ;)

 

[MaeFlowers]

Again, it isn't about the cake. Call and ask for a birthday cake and you will get one. You can get a wedding cake from any baker anywhere who will take the job. What you could not do prior to recent events that drove several bakeries out of business is force a Christian baker to make a "wedding cake" for what cannot be a wedding in his faith according to scripture. Now you can.

 

 

2 Peter: 2:

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. ² Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers^[ the way of truth will be maligned.

 

So people have twisted clear proscriptions against Israelites intermarrying Pagans into something it doesn't say, which you admit here? That doesn't make it right or ok or usable for that purpose. That just means they can't read or don't understand what they are reading.

 

It's really sad.

Except that one could argue that an interpretation of Ezra being against interracial marriage if they understood that identifying as Hebrew in Ezra's time was as much a racial distinction as it was a faith one.

 

Interpretation is often arbitrary. That's why you get some Christians who think it's just a cake while others do not. A single passage can often be interpreted in a multitude of ways or a person may chose to emphasize one book over another. If the Bible was clear, we wouldn't have the need for so many denominations.

 

Most people I know would bake the cake. Most of those same people would also defend a person's right not to.

[bibiche]

Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex.  But your religious beliefs don't decide. No one's religious beliefs should make it acceptable to break the law. And discrimination is against the law. Law trumps religious beliefs. Period.  Let them eat (gay wedding) cake! :) 

 

I really don't see the problem. 

[HS Mom in NC]

For people who think Christians shouldn't sell wedding cakes for homosexual weddings because of your understanding of what the Bible says, are you against unbiblical heterosexual marriage (a believer marrying an unbeliever, remarriage by someone divorced for unbiblical reasons, etc.) in general?  Would you refuse to provide wedding products and services to them?

If you answered yes to either or both of those questions, are you morally obligated to find out if each customer is getting married according to your understanding of the Bible before you agree to provide goods and services or are you innocent in providing it to the unbiblically married if you have a don't ask, don't tell policy? Are you only guilty in providing them if they happen to volunteer that information?

If think you're obligated to find out before you agree to provide goods and services, please give examples of how you think you would go about finding out.  Be specific.

[TranquilMind]

Except that one could argue that an interpretation of Ezra being against interracial marriage if they understood that identifying as Hebrew in Ezra's time was as much a racial distinction as it was a faith one.

 

Interpretation is often arbitrary. That's why you get some Christians who think it's just a cake while others do not. A single passage can often be interpreted in a multitude of ways or a person may chose to emphasize one book over another. If the Bible was clear, we wouldn't have the need for so many denominations.

 

Most people I know would bake the cake. Most of those same people would also defend a person's right not to.

 

No, Hebrews are not a race. 

 

From Judaism 101:  Jews are clearly not a race.

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

 

Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).

 

[Dmmetler]

The other thing is that sexual orientation isn't a protected class everywhere. And generally, business owners can decline for pretty much any reason that ISN'T a protected class. My mom and sister own a cake shop, they can turn down someone just because they don't like how they sound on the phone. Generally speaking, the only times they turn people down are when they are already booked up for a particular day, but they have turned folks away who were all bridezilla, or because they want a cake design that they don't feel qualified to do, or whatever. They HAVE done cakes for bachelor and bachelorette cakes that are...inappropriate lol. But, they know other cake shop owners that won't do those kinds of cakes and turn away people who request those. They have also done same sex wedding cakes. But as far as I know, sexual orientation isn't a protected class in our state, so it would be as legal to turn down a gay wedding cake as it is to turn down an inappropriate bachelorette cake.

As I posted the last time this came up, there is a natural consequence to doing so. My DD loves snakes and wanted her pet snakes on her birthday cake, so I called a bunch of bakeries. Some did no custom work, some were willing to do only custom work of a type they'd done before, some said "find something on Pinterest and send me a picture and I'll try to copy it", and one said "my daughter is the one who does fondant work. Let's have your daughter sit down with her and tell her what she wants, with photos of her snakes."-her daughter didn't even blink at DD's explanation that she wanted "a little wedding cake with Pinkie and Wadjet on it", only asking if she should put a bridal veil and hat on the snakes :), and seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the chance to do so. They did a beautiful job-and as a result, I recommended them on several local parent forums, homeschool forums (especially since they are a homeschool family) herp keeper forums, and other groups. I know of several people who have gotten cakes from them since, some much larger and more expensive than DD's snake cake.

 

The fact is, a baker that is genuinely enthusiastic about doing a job and does a good one is going to get recommended. One who turns down chances, or seems disinterested or reluctant isn't. It's that simple. Do that too often, and you'd better hope the people who share your standards buy a lot of cake, because otherwise your business will go down the tubes, even if your cake is great.

[TranquilMind]

Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex.  But your religious beliefs don't decide. No one's religious beliefs should make it acceptable to break the law. And discrimination is against the law. Law trumps religious beliefs. Period.  Let them eat (gay wedding) cake! :)

 

I really don't see the problem. 

 

Someone else's faith does not recognize gay marriage? 

 

Don't force them to provide services for your "wedding" under threat of legal penalty.  Don't send them death threats.  Hire one of the thousands of other businesses whose owners have no such beliefs.

 

Problem solved. 

[TranquilMind]

As I posted the last time this came up, there is a natural consequence to doing so. My DD loves snakes and wanted her pet snakes on her birthday cake, so I called a bunch of bakeries. Some did no custom work, some were willing to do only custom work of a type they'd done before, some said "find something on Pinterest and send me a picture and I'll try to copy it", and one said "my daughter is the one who does fondant work. Let's have your daughter sit down with her and tell her what she wants, with photos of her snakes."-her daughter didn't even blink at DD's explanation that she wanted "a little wedding cake with Pinkie and Wadjet on it", only asking if she should put a bridal veil and hat on the snakes :), and seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the chance to do so. They did a beautiful job-and as a result, I recommended them on several local parent forums, homeschool forums (especially since they are a homeschool family) herp keeper forums, and other groups. I know of several people who have gotten cakes from them since, some much larger and more expensive than DD's snake cake.

 

The fact is, a baker that is genuinely enthusiastic about doing a job and does a good one is going to get recommended. One who turns down chances, or seems disinterested or reluctant isn't. It's that simple. Do that too often, and you'd better hope the people who share your standards buy a lot of cake, because otherwise your business will go down the tubes, even if your cake is great.

 

I would like to see that cake. 

 

But yeah, you have the logical reaction.  Hire someone who seems most interested in doing it.  It really is that simple. 

My go-to wouldn't be, "I'm going to SUE them for turning down my job and get everyone I know to harass them!" 

 

It would be more like, "Well, I hope I will find someone really good."  Then I'd give the one I hired a really big tip. 

 

[bibiche]

Not the way it works. And it is a slippery slope.

 

You can dissect your bible and quote scripture as much as you like, but it has no bearing: ours is a secular society, whether you like it or not.

[MercyA]

Now, if anyone can find a baker who absolutely only bakes wedding cakes for scriptural weddings (of whichever religion they happen to adhere to), then maybe they'd have a case. 

 

Yes, exactly what I was going to suggest. Consistency is key, and I haven't been seeing that.

[bettyandbob]

Someone else's faith does not recognize gay marriage?

 

Don't force them to provide services for your "wedding" under threat of legal penalty. Don't send them death threats. Hire one of the thousands of other businesses whose owners have no such beliefs.

 

Problem solved.

The cake is not for the wedding.

 

The baker is not being required to perform the ceremony and bless the wedding.

[scholastica]

And yet many many many people used it, including pastors, to prevent interracial marriages. That's not what the verse says, but people can and have interpreted it that way.

 

Just like there is no verse that outlaws selling merchandise to a gay couple, even for a gay wedding. And yet, people will interpret versus that are about other things, to say that the Bible is against it.

 

SAME THING.

Isn't it great Katie that you belong to a church that believes in Scripture and Tradition, not just the Bible alone? So you don't have to rely on Scripture alone to decide. Also that your church has a teaching authority to help you wade through all this and decide whether the selling of a cake would be immediate, proximate or remote cooperation? Then you are able to research your church's position and teaching and know what the right thing to do is.

[Scarlett]

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.

Well yes, I guess I was thinking of life saving stuff...not fertility treatments.

[TranquilMind]

The cake is not for the wedding.

 

The baker is not being required to perform the ceremony and bless the wedding.

 

No, it is for the wedding celebration, not the wedding procession itself.   

 

I never said he performed the ceremony, but if he did, there would be people insisting that he has to do it, regardless of his personal beliefs.

[MaeFlowers]

No, Hebrews are not a race.

 

From Judaism 101: Jews are clearly not a race.

Race is a genetic distinction, and refers to people with shared ancestry and shared genetic traits. You can't change your race; it's in your DNA. I could never become black or Asian no matter how much I might want to.

 

Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew. Many Jews worldwide share common ancestry, as shown by genetic research; however, you can be a Jew without sharing this common ancestry, for example, by converting. Thus, although I could never become black or Asian, blacks and Asians have become Jews (Sammy Davis Jr. and Connie Chung).

I didn't say they were a race. I said they identified themselves more as a race than as a faith. I'm speaking in terms of the Ancient Hebrew people not modern Judaism.

 

The ancient Hebrew faith was intertwined into racial identity (and maybe cultural identity would be a more apt description). It was much different than how one identifies as a Christian. You did not choose to be Hebrew, you were born Hebrew. You were born Hebrew under the covenant made with a nation. You could chose, however, whether or not to follow the law but either way you were bound to the covenant. Pagans were not bound because they were of a different nation.

 

So, mixing with pagans wasn't just straying from the faith, it was mixing with a group that had a different racial/cultural identity.

[bettyandbob]

No, it is for the wedding celebration, not the wedding procession itself.

 

I never said he performed the ceremony, but if he did, there would be people insisting that he has to do it, regardless of his personal beliefs.

No if a baker is also pastor who only performs religious ceremonies in his faith he won't be forced to perform the ceremony.

 

If that same pastor baked cakes for sale to the general public he would be required to sell cakes to ALL of the public.

 

Cake and religious blessing are different things, even if provided by the same person.

[Scarlett]

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.

Well that is a good point. I can't even imagine how it would go since I don't bake cakes. Lol.....I guess I would not have a problem providing a service to homosexuals. I mean in many cases I doubt I would even know....and as others have said there are plenty of marriages that are wrong.

 

Somehow photography seems different. It is an artistic expression. I wouldn't want to be party to that.

[Scarlett]

So if you can't sell a cake to a couple for a wedding, can you also not do their hair, or sell them shoes they might wear to the wedding? Are paper plates okay to sell them, if they have an informal wedding, because plates don't condone a wedding but a cake does? What about sheets they might use on their bed? What about electricity for their home they live in together?

 

Again, there is nothing in the scriptures about not being able to do business with a sinner/pagan/homosexual. And selling someone a product is doing business. Now, I'd defend all day the right not to say a blessing at the wedding, but selling them a cake is not approving of the wedding. It's business.

 

And the verses quoted above don't change the meaning...it still says that they were both doing and condoning the action. So yeah, I could see saying if you are in a homosexual relationship and condoning one, that would fit the verse. But that's not the case. (and still, no reason to think selling the cake condones the marriage anyway).

Very good points.

[Janeway]

I am torn over the forcing businesses to make cakes for Gay marriage thing. I mean...if I found out a bakery refused to serve Gay people, then I would never use that bakery again and would tell everyone I know not to use it. The bakery would have to decide if the loss of business is worth not serving an entire population. Why would anyone who supports gay rights want to give business to people who hate gay people? But I am not sure if forcing someone to bake a cake for someone they do not want to bake a cake for is the right way to go about it. 

[Greta]

Oh come on.  The gluttony rests squarely on the one engaging in it.  

 

So gluttony is a sin for which only the person engaging in it is responsible, but when it comes to homosexuality, everyone who sells them goods and services is participating in their sin?

[wendyroo]

No, they aren't being asked to make "homosexual cakes".  They are being asked to make "wedding"cakes for what cannot be a wedding scripturally.  This is the difference that everyone keeps overlooking.  It isn't about the cake.  It is about the meaning of marriage.

 

If I'm a traditional wedding photographer, for example,  and all of the sudden society suddenly decides that "wedding photography" should now include photos of the couples in bed, because hey, who waits until the wedding night, I should be free to decline this new meaning of what I do and stick to my wedding photography of the couple and their families in public.  Yet under this reasoning, if people get a whim that "wedding photography" means photos of the to-be-married couple in bed, everyone should be forced to accept this new meaning. 

 

 

Why can't they decline?  At the time all of these cake cases arose, "homosexual marriage" wasn't even a legal thing.  Now it is legal, but it is still a ceremony in which some do not wish to play any role and a tolerant society would accept these variant views.  Why isn't that tolerance extended to these people? 

It isn't as if there is a shortage of cakes, and they can only be obtained by one large company that controls everything. 

 

 

Again, public accommodation laws allow you to exclude any services you want, as long as you do so across the board.

 

Even if social norms changed to include bedroom photos, you would be perfectly within your rights to not offer that service.  You would not, however, legally be able to take those types of photos for most people and only refuse people that fall into one or more protected classes.

 

Wendy

[bettyandbob]

Oh come on. The gluttony rests squarely on the one engaging in it. You will see skinny and fat people at most weddings. It's on them, not on others to decide what they should eat and how much.

In its proper place, cake is a rare treat. If you eat way too much, it's on you.

 

My husband makes AMAZING cakes (and all sorts of baked goods) from scratch. I have had to limit this to major occasions only, or we'd be 300 pounds. I didn't even have it for my last birthday. We didn't have a pan small enough. ;)

 

Why couldn't the same be of homosexuality, if you're determination is it is a sin.

 

Perhaps there should be required tests for all sins that could be found related to wedding related events.

 

No it is not the baker's role as a baker to deter and judge sin.

[Scarlett]

No, they aren't being asked to make "homosexual cakes". They are being asked to make "wedding"cakes for what cannot be a wedding scripturally. This is the difference that everyone keeps overlooking. It isn't about the cake. It is about the meaning of marriage.

 

If I'm a traditional wedding photographer, for example, and all of the sudden society suddenly decides that "wedding photography" should now include photos of the couples in bed, because hey, who waits until the wedding night, I should be free to decline this new meaning of what I do and stick to my wedding photography of the couple and their families in public. Yet under this reasoning, if people get a whim that "wedding photography" means photos of the to-be-married couple in bed, everyone should be forced to accept this new meaning.

 

You aren't responsible for other people's definition of marriage. Not making a cake for a couple won't change their mind about definitions anyway.

[Bluegoat]

I think whatever one things about how one sells services, this is a pretty poor reading of what Scripture says even without looking beyond the text, and totally fails to take into account the history of interpretation which is a pretty important aspect of reading Scripture for the majority of Christians today or historically.

 

It's like something I'd expect from a high school student with no church history or sense of catholicity.

[TranquilMind]

I didn't say they were a race. I said they identified themselves more as a race than as a faith. I'm speaking in terms of the Ancient Hebrew people not modern Judaism.

 

The ancient Hebrew faith was intertwined into racial identity (and maybe cultural identity would be a more apt description). It was much different than how one identifies as a Christian. You did not choose to be Hebrew, you were born Hebrew. You were born Hebrew under the covenant made with a nation. You could chose, however, whether or not to follow the law but either way you were bound to the covenant. Pagans were not bound because they were of a different nation.

 

So, mixing with pagans wasn't just straying from the faith, it was mixing with a group that had a different racial/cultural identity.

The relevance though, was that intermarriage with pagans caused the Hebrews faith to be diluted and mixed with pagan customs over time.  This is why they were very clearly instructed not to do this.  

[TranquilMind]

No if a baker is also pastor who only performs religious ceremonies in his faith he won't be forced to perform the ceremony.

 

If that same pastor baked cakes for sale to the general public he would be required to sell cakes to ALL of the public.

 

Cake and religious blessing are different things, even if provided by the same person.

He does and will sell cakes to all.  Anyone can go buy a cake and anyone can order a cake for any non-religious sort of celebration at all.  Nothing changed, ever. 

 

He provided wedding cakes for weddings.   Now the law has changed that and he must provide a wedding cake for anything that is a legal wedding, but at the time, these bakers were being sued to provide wedding cakes for events that weren't even legal weddings, much less scriptural weddings. 

[TranquilMind]

So gluttony is a sin for which only the person engaging in it is responsible, but when it comes to homosexuality, everyone who sells them goods and services is participating in their sin?

I didn't say that. 

 

Selling *a* cake to a wedding party does not constitute encouraging gluttony.  That's ridiculous.

 

Now if some woman or man who was 500 pounds came into my bakery and told me that all he does is eat, and he knew it was killing him, and can he have 6 cakes, I would discourage that and try to talk to him about real issues and suggest that he get some help so he could live and not die. 

 

I would consider that my personal responsibility, as a human.  I suppose in today's ridiculous environment, I would be sued for "fat-shaming" if I suggested that maybe he didn't want six cakes. 

[bibiche]

Wow, you are having a hard time with this, TM. Maybe you need conversion therapy.