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

[bettyandbob]

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.

I don't think it matters how recent the law changed. I believe changes were well advertised before they happened. If someone knew they could not compky, he needed to alter his business so that compliance would not be an issue. This is not something you can go into gradually.

 

What would gradual look like?

Refuse service sometimes?

Only bakers can refuse service, but not florists and photographers?

 

To me it needs to be clear. Just like when a traffic pattern is changed, it's not optional for some drivers but not others.

[FaithManor]

And unless there is going to be a "sin inventory" that potential customers have to fill out before asking for service, there is no way that the business owner can not violate his or her own beliefs by enabling something that is wrong in his/her religion. Seems given the entire picture of Jesus' life, a sin inventory in order to buy a product or service is about as anti-Christlike as one can get. It for sure is an awesome way to make sure no one wants to join your religious faith though, so if the real goal is to circle the wagons and prevent anybody new from converting, then BAM the baker wins a gold star!

 

I would almost guarantee he has happily served other gay couples too. The bride/groom toppers have for the most part gone they of the dodo with most couples, and having been in the event planning business, I can tell you that it is not uncommon for the details of the day to fall much more heavily on one person in the couple...the one that cares the most about the nitty gritty. The vast majority of bakers only ask for the name of the person paying for the cake unless there is going to be writing which anymore is not at all common. While potentially they might find out at the reception site when they set up the cake if there is signage listing first names and those first names are gender specific - I did a wedding for a Rose and a Taylor, and I've met many female Taylors as well as male Taylors - it is also quite possible to set it up, leave, and not have seen any indication as most marquees only give last names, and programs are at the church, not in the hall. My daughter's wedding cake did not indicate the gender of her intended, and since he lived out of state, he never met the baker. When she came to set it up, she was met by the caterer and no one else.

 

That said. I cannot see any religious protection the guy could have in this particular case. He admitted to having made an elaborate wedding cake for two dogs. (I know, I know...trying not to judgy about weird dog owners thst treat their canines like humans. But....ya....)

[ktgrok]

I think the point was although you can say "I think Jesus wouldn't like this" there are no versus SAYING that it is sinful. The verse quoted above by someone, about causing another to sin doesn't work...the cake isn't making them have sexual relations. 

 

As for selling them a cake showing approval, first, there isn't anything in the Bible about that. Second, Jesus sat and ate with the tax collectors and sinners. Wasn't that "showing approval" as much or more so as buying a cake from them? Christians were not told not to do business with non Christians anywhere in the Bible. And that's all it is, doing business. Pretty sure most Christias/Jews who were selling things were selling them to pagans, and yet Jesus does't say anything about that. So yeah, if you have some amorphous feeling it is bad, that's you not Jesus. He had plenty of opportunities to say not to do business with sinners, and he didn't. 

[maize]

It does not become an embryo until after implantation. It would be expelled as a zygote/blastocyst - a ball of indistinguishable cells.

By the way, I did some research this morning because I haven't studied embryiological development since college. The medical definitions of embryo that I found were all similar to this: "In humans, the developing organism from conception until the end of the eighth month; developmental stages from this time to birth are commonly designated as fetal."

[TranquilMind]

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

 

It isn't compelling at all; it is disingenuous, not surprisingly for patheos.   

Selling a product is not at all the same thing as providing goods/services to a religious ceremony that is in violation of scriptural principles.   For something other than a wedding, knock yourself out. 

 

No one objects to selling a cake at the shop.

 

The relevant section of the Romans passage is chopped off, presenting a false picture.  The section regarding immorality starts at verse 18, after the greetings and preliminary stuff.   (Vs 18-23 are about how men suppress the truth and existence of God and lays groundwork.  It is still relevant.)

 

 

²⁴ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

²⁶ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; ²⁷ and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

Yet the writer begins here, as if the previous verses discussing immorality are somehow irrelevant: 

 

²⁸ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³² Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

The last sentence is just obvious.  Those that do indeed actually do each of these things of course excuse them and justify them.  It does not follow that every person who approves sin (as summarized here) happens to commit every sin.   Some approve various sins just because others they care about happen to be doing it, not because they themselves happen to commit that particular sin.  

It is about hypocritical judgement , but it does not approve passive approval of sins that you don't happen to commit, the way the writer wishes to argue it does. 

 

The writer's argument for Matthew 5, "Do not resist one who is evil....give to the one who asks you and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." is pretty funny,as it is obvious that the writer would insist that those demanding cakes for religious ceremonies that are not weddings (scripturally) are not indeed evil.  But you can't cut that out of the passage as the writer does yet again. 

 

So give to evil people that are hurting you, damaging you, or stealing from you....sure.   I'm not sure you want to argue that it applies here, but go ahead. 

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't think it matters how recent the law changed. I believe changes were well advertised before they happened. If someone knew they could not compky, he needed to alter his business so that compliance would not be an issue. This is not something you can go into gradually.

 

What would gradual look like?

Refuse service sometimes?

Only bakers can refuse service, but not florists and photographers?

 

To me it needs to be clear. Just like when a traffic pattern is changed, it's not optional for some drivers but not others.

I don't think the timing of the changes was really all that predictable.  In fact, 10 years ago even many gay rights activists were saying that they didn't want gay marriage.  The Defense of Marriage act was fairly recent--September of 1996.  Whether it was predictable or not, as I said before, I don't think it's right to be cavilier about it, as in, "Oh, they should have known better than to start that business."  That's pretty low.

 

And to me it IS clear what the distinction should be going forward, which is something artistic or otherwise requiring an emotional and approving commitment on the part of the seller, or active participation in something that forces them to go against their conscience.  Again, personally I would make the cake, but if the cake is personalized in an artistic way where part of the 'product' itself requires an emotional buy in of the couple or the wedding from the seller, then I don't think you can force someone to do that if it goes against their conscience.  To me a photographer is even closer to that requirement, and florist is less so.  FWIW.  

 

And just in general, the First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression needs protection, just like all the other freedoms do.  'If you can keep it...' applies to all of them.

 

 

[Amy in NH]

By the way, I did some research this morning because I haven't studied embryiological development since college. The medical definitions of embryo that I found were all similar to this: "In humans, the developing organism from conception until the end of the eighth month; developmental stages from this time to birth are commonly designated as fetal."

Not sure what source you were using. Try a medical reference book. Here's one: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetus

[TranquilMind]

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.

 

The conflict is with the very meaning of marriage, not the approval of the particular couple getting married.  You are conflating the two.    I agree that what you describe isn't marriage either.

 

Scripturally, marriage has been defined as something that only takes place between a man and a woman, and is actually not the service, but the "joining together" as husband and wife.   Anything else is a different relationship other than a "marriage", though now legal.     (As to whether the other situations you mention are indeed "marriage",  should be addressed by the priest/pastor.  Some speak up (RCC) and others will allow anyone to marry.  God has final say as to the legitimacy of those). 

 

[ktgrok]

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). 

[Amy in NH]

I don't think the timing of the changes was really all that predictable. In fact, 10 years ago even many gay rights activists were saying that they didn't want gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage act was fairly recent--September of 1996. Whether it was predictable or not, as I said before, I don't think it's right to be cavilier about it, as in, "Oh, they should have known better than to start that business." That's pretty low.

 

And to me it IS clear what the distinction should be going forward, which is something artistic or otherwise requiring an emotional and approving commitment on the part of the seller, or active participation in something that forces them to go against their conscience. Again, personally I would make the cake, but if the cake is personalized in an artistic way where part of the 'product' itself requires an emotional buy in of the couple or the wedding from the seller, then I don't think you can force someone to do that if it goes against their conscience. To me a photographer is even closer to that requirement, and florist is less so. FWIW.

 

And just in general, the First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression needs protection, just like all the other freedoms do. 'If you can keep it...' applies to all of them.

This is not a matter of your religious expression being encroached. You can still worship as you see fit, even praying the whole time you make the cake for the gay couple. They also have a freedom of religious expression, which includes being free not to have to live according to your religious preferences, that also needs to be protected. Edited October 19, 2016 by Amy in NH

[TranquilMind]

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.

 

Exactly. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Pretty sure most Christias/Jews who were selling things were selling them to pagans, and yet Jesus does't say anything about that. 

Somewhat irrelevant theological tangent:

 

This is a good point, but it's kind of implied in some places in the Gospels.  

 

For instance, the prodigal son, when he hits bottom, is wishing he was fed as well as the pigs he had to tend to make a living in a foreign land--pork being forbidden, and hence pig-tending shameful to God's people, and something that was not supposed to be done.  Then he heads home where there is plenty of food and safety and comfort in his own family/tribe, and his father feeds everyone 'the fatted calf'--good, kosher beef.

 

The story of where the demons enter a herd of pigs and they run off the cliff and kill themselves, similarly the subtext is that it was fairly shameful for the people of God to be raising pigs in the first place, despite how lucrative it was to do so.

 

And lastly, in the story where Jesus says "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's", earlier in the story He says, Whose image is on this coin?  which digs at 'you shall have no graven images', so what are you doing with that image in your pocket, money or not?

 

Those are pretty straight forward examples of where there Jesus goes along with/emphasizes a prohibition that was specific to God's people in contrast to those around them.

 

I don't use those to argue against making the cake, but I also don't think it's quite right to say that Jesus approves of unquestioned commerce across religious lines.  "You cannot serve both God and Mammon" comes into play.

[Carol in Cal.]

This is not a matter of your religious expression being encroached. You can still worship as you see fit, even praying the whole time you make the cake for the gay couple. They also have a freedom of religious expression, which includes being free not to have to live according to your religious preferences, that also needs to be protected.

Freedom of religious expression is not, nor should it be, confined to worship.

This is more in the area of conscientious objection from active participation.

 

And please stop saying 'your'.  I've said several times that *I* would make the cake.  I'm arguing for American rights here, not for myself or even for something that I would feel bound to, on behalf of others who may feel so bound, on principle.

 

 

[MercyA]

I think the point was although you can say "I think Jesus wouldn't like this" there are no versus SAYING that it is sinful. The verse quoted above by someone, about causing another to sin doesn't work...the cake isn't making them have sexual relations. 

 

As for selling them a cake showing approval, first, there isn't anything in the Bible about that. Second, Jesus sat and ate with the tax collectors and sinners. Wasn't that "showing approval" as much or more so as buying a cake from them? Christians were not told not to do business with non Christians anywhere in the Bible. And that's all it is, doing business. Pretty sure most Christias/Jews who were selling things were selling them to pagans, and yet Jesus does't say anything about that. So yeah, if you have some amorphous feeling it is bad, that's you not Jesus. He had plenty of opportunities to say not to do business with sinners, and he didn't. 

 

Yes, Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, and Luke 5 tells us why:

 

"And Levi gave a big reception for Him in his house; and there was a great crowd of tax collectors and other people who were reclining at the table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, 'Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?' And Jesus answered and said to them, 'It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.'"

 

I agree that as far as I know, there is no New Testament prohibition against doing business with anyone. However, there are still principles of conscience at play. Paul's letter to the Romans: "The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin." If selling a homosexual person a cake goes against a Christian's conscience, he should not do it -- but for heaven's sake he should be consistent and not sell cakes to adulterers or unequally yoked couples either.

[Guest2]

It does not become an embryo until after implantation. It would be expelled as a zygote/blastocyst - a ball of indistinguishable cells.

I just did a quick search, didn't know there was a different term. I am always learning from this board. I can't find anything that says it is a ball of indistinguishable cells, but I did see it as zygote/blosocyst.https://www.reference.com/science/difference-between-zygote-embryo-53ee71488bb28dc1

[HomeAgain]

You know, when I was growing up Catholic, there was a total vibe of 'keep your nose on what you are doing, and don't worry about anyone else's journey".  Somehow this seems so lost in adulthood where many of these "religious freedom" campaigns center on keeping others from sin, whatever you think the sin may be. 

I'd rather go back to the lessons of my childhood.

 

 

[FaithManor]

I don't think the timing of the changes was really all that predictable. In fact, 10 years ago even many gay rights activists were saying that they didn't want gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage act was fairly recent--September of 1996. Whether it was predictable or not, as I said before, I don't think it's right to be cavilier about it, as in, "Oh, they should have known better than to start that business." That's pretty low.

 

And to me it IS clear what the distinction should be going forward, which is something artistic or otherwise requiring an emotional and approving commitment on the part of the seller, or active participation in something that forces them to go against their conscience. Again, personally I would make the cake, but if the cake is personalized in an artistic way where part of the 'product' itself requires an emotional buy in of the couple or the wedding from the seller, then I don't think you can force someone to do that if it goes against their conscience. To me a photographer is even closer to that requirement, and florist is less so. FWIW.

 

And just in general, the First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression needs protection, just like all the other freedoms do. 'If you can keep it...' applies to all of them.

If this is indeed the case, then the entire Civil Rights movement is nullified. Period. A religious case for not doing business with black, Hispanic, Asian, people, women, Muslims, Hindus, disabled people...where does it stop? Is that really the kind of society we should have? From the christian persepctive, how is that even remotely Jesus like?

 

I have known people that believe physical deformity is a result of sin in the parents' lives. So now we let businesses refuse service to the person with a a missing arm? Taken to its logical conclusion, any person can claim a closely held religious belief and discriminate for any reason.

 

Bottom line. The right of anyone to believe anything stops with them. No one constitutional right gets to extend past the next person. What kind of society are we when we legally sanction public businesses not serving the public? We had that before. It wasn't pretty. People died over it. No thanks. It it is entirely legal to run a private club and only do business with club members to insure one is not "enabling sin" that one has cherry picked as being worth more spiritual consequence as others. That is what the baker, florist, and photographer should do if this is that big of a concern to them.

 

And again if anyone is going to claim Christ and then act like this, I cannot, given the example of Christ himself, see how any "closely held belief" right can be made. It is totally hypocritical.

 

It is interesting to me that in my area so many who are adamant that religious belief should be protected in the public domain at all cost are generally against the protection of religious belief dictating civil law and life in other countries. Big, whomping double standard in my neck of the woods. They do not believe in protecting religious expression for all, just having evangelical Protestantism ad a protected class.

[Carol in Cal.]

You know, when I was growing up Catholic, there was a total vibe of 'keep your nose on what you are doing, and don't worry about anyone else's journey".  Somehow this seems so lost in adulthood where many of these "religious freedom" campaigns center on keeping others from sin, whatever you think the sin may be. 

 

I don't think that this issue is one of keeping others from sin, but rather one of not wanting to be forced to endorse it against your own conscience.

[bettyandbob]

I'm not sure a baker can say making a cake for a gay couple impinges his religious expression, when he still makes cakes for couples of faiths other than his own or makes a cake for a couple that is having a secular ceremony in a park. If one wants to only serve people who follow his faith he needs to do his business by referral only from religious leaders who approve the marriages.

 

What is happening is various concessions associated with parties (wedding receptions are parties, not spiritual blessings) are picking one group to not serve. It is hypocritical to say this has to do with religious practice when they serve others who are not seeking a religious blessing matching their faith. Aside from the fact that it is illegal I don't find any standing based on the hypocrisy of serving some people outside the faith, but not others.

[maize]

Not sure what source you were using. Try a medical reference book. Here's one: http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetus

I just did a search for "medical definition embryo" almost every single link uses fertilization as the defining cut-off; a few dealt with the need for newer definitions as embryos may be created through processes other than fertilization (such as cloning).

 

Http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/mobileart.asp?articlekey=3225

http://m.humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/4/905.full

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=28538

https://books.google.com/books?id=G6NHDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA671&lpg=PA671&dq=medical+definition+embryo&source=bl&ots=D5tkuZuO82&sig=1Ar7HWHglWsUmjpU74K3g5yRvp4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOw7Wz9ObPAhXK44MKHUhJCtI4ChDoAQg7MAk#v=onepage&q=medical%20definition%20embryo&f=false

 

Http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/home/ovc-20206838

 

Http://www.thebump.com/a/difference-between-embryo-and-fetus

 

I checked in French as well:

 

Http://www.informationhospitaliere.com/pharma-5706-embryon.html

 

And Spanish:

Http://salud.ccm.net/faq/12801-embrion-definicion

 

And German: http://www.spektrum.de/news/als-embryo-gilt-alles-was-ein-mensch-werden-kann/1301404

 

International consensus seems to define embryo as "that which can develop into a human"--fertilized zygote or other cell containing all the information and potential necessary.

 

I would say that a blastocyst is one phase of embryological development, not something fundamentally different from an embryo.

 

I apologize if links are messy, I'm on my phone.

Edited October 19, 2016 by maize

[TranquilMind]

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!

Whoa...hold on.  The cake businesses that have been sued have been in the wedding business for many years and even decades prior, when no reasonable person thought that marriage could mean any two people, instead of a man and a woman.  This is not a legitimate argument. 

 

Wow, the Kleins were actually silenced about this topic under a gag order, which goes much farther than just the ridiculous $135,000 fine they received.  http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/   Ridiculous.

This is how the Kleins were treated by the pro-tolerance crowd: 

 

From claims that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness. Aaron and Melissa shared a number of the e-mails with TheBlaze.

“You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical b**ch.  I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,†reads one e-mail.

“Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot. Enjoy hell,†reads another.

But it’s not just rhetoric that the husband and wife have encountered as a result of their refusal to provide the cake. They claim that their wedding vendors have been “badgered and harassed†until they refuse to do business with Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/31/economic-terrorism-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-gets-threats-could-close-down/

 

There have been several Christian bakeries targeted in this manner.

 

Yet when the tables are turned, this guy is turned away repeatedly:

 

[Videos included]

 

"So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us the right to have “Gay Marriage Is Wrong†on a cake and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said all sorts of profanities against Christians and ended the conversation by saying that she will make me a cookie with a large phallus on it.

 

It was all recorded. It will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual bakers were. Even after we completed our experiment we got a ton of hate messages saying that we were â€œhateful†for simply giving them a taste of their own medicine. They argued that the slogan “Gay Marriage Is Wrong†is not the same thing as “Support Gay Marriage†as if an opposite view of a view is hateful."

 

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado has been forced into "reverse conversion therapy" or "straight man's rehab", as he calls it, along with the staff, which must undergo regular training.  He also has to provide the government regular reports on any business he declined.  He has been in business for forty years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HomeAgain]

I don't think that this issue is one of keeping others from sin, but rather one of not wanting to be forced to endorse it against your own conscience.

 

Endorsement is an absurd word to use here.  There is no public show of support or approval.

 

I do like the Daily Show's take on the matter, though.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-no-gays-food-truck_us_57f3b380e4b0703f7590ee42

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm not sure a baker can say making a cake for a gay couple impinges his religious expression, when he still makes cakes for couples of faiths other than his own or makes a cake for a couple that is having a secular ceremony in a park. If one wants to only serve people who follow his faith he needs to do his business by referral only from religious leaders who approve the marriages.

 

It's not my place to define what the baker's religious expression is or what his conscience calls for.

 

This is kind of like conscientious objectors from the military.  I wouldn't be one, but I'm glad that our country values freedom of religious expression enough to have a provision for them.

[Onceuponatime]

The conflict is with the very meaning of marriage, not the approval of the particular couple getting married. You are conflating the two. I agree that what you describe isn't marriage either.

 

Scripturally, marriage has been defined as something that only takes place between a man and a woman, and is actually not the service, but the "joining together" as husband and wife. Anything else is a different relationship other than a "marriage", though now legal. (As to whether the other situations you mention are indeed "marriage", should be addressed by the priest/pastor. Some speak up (RCC) and others will allow anyone to marry. God has final say as to the legitimacy of those).

 

This definition of marriage is only applicable to the portion of the world's population that believes it is applicable and believes that the bible has authority over their lives. They are not free to define it or enforce it for everyone else on the authority of the bible. Marriage is ultimately a social institution. Societies define its meaning and boundaries. Definitions are fluid as society changes. Edited October 19, 2016 by Onceuponatime

[Carol in Cal.]

Endorsement is an absurd word to use here.  There is no public show of support or approval.

 

 

Absurd is a rude word to use here.

 

And to the extent that there is personalized artistry needed to provide a service, there is a public show of support/approval.  Which is why, even though I would make the cake myself, I defend those who don't feel they can do so.  Again, more so with photography, and less so with florists, on that same principle.

[maize]

It's not my place to define what the baker's religious expression is or what his conscience calls for.

 

This is kind of like conscientious objectors from the military. I wouldn't be one, but I'm glad that our country values freedom of religious expression enough to have a provision for them.

And drawing the lines that limit religious or moral expression is never as straightforward/black-and-white as people on any side of a particular debate like to claim.

 

There is always more than one way of looking at things; I find our societal tendency to dismiss any point of view that does not correspond with our own as preposterous, bigoted, etc. to be profoundly disturbing.

 

We live in a pluralistic society; I would like to see a lot more thoughtful listening and consideration on all sides and a lot less name calling and condemnation.

[maize]

Marriage is ultimately a social institution. Societies define its meaning and boundaries. Definitions are fluid as society changes.

And when there are conflicting conceptualizations and social definitions of something as fundamental as marriage society is going to go through some pretty intense upheavals.

[FaithManor]

This definition of marriage is only applicable to the portion of the world's population that believes it is applicable and believes that the bible has authority over their lives. They are not free to define it or enforce it for everyone else on the authority of the bible. Marriage is ultimately a social institution. Societies define its meaning and boundaries. Definitions are fluid as society changes.

Exactly. Marriage has been around for as long as there has been organized society. If religious majority got to define it for everyone else for all time, likely polygamy would rule the day as ancient societies were not primarily Judeo based.

 

Every religion can have its own sacramental meaning of marriage and celebration of that. But in order to protect the rights of the civil government to define it for legal purpose, one religion can not dictate that if it is a plural society.

[TranquilMind]

This definition of marriage is only applicable to the portion of the world's population that believes it is applicable and believes that the bible has authority over their lives. They are not free to define it or enforce it for everyone else on the authority of the bible. Marriage is ultimately a social institution. Societies define its meaning and boundaries. Definitions are fluid as society changes.

Society certainly believes marriage to have a malleable meaning and a mere social institution.  God only knows what comes next. 

 

No one ever wanted to force the meaning of marriage on others or make them marry if they didn't want to, but merely preserve the meaning as recognized throughout history.  That's out the window now. 

 

[TranquilMind]

Really....that's a great question.

 

As I mentioned, in most places, sexual orientation isn't a protected class.  SO, it's currently legal, in most places, to refuse service for that reason, as it is legal to refuse service for basically any reason that doesn't involve a protected class.  I know the idea is then to go ahead and work to get sexual orientation added to protected classes.

 

But....where DOES that stop?  Should a cake baker with a moral objection to Halloween be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a Halloween party?  What about a caterer who specializes in vegan and allergy free dishes be allowed to refuse allergy free catering to a fur company party?  Should a printer be allowed to refuse to print pornographic images (assuming of course legally consenting adults all around.)  Can a therapist who has a moral objection to spanking be allowed to refuse services to family that does spank?  There are plenty of people who have moral objections to things that have nothing to do with religion and I genuinely wonder, where is the line that makes it ok to more or less force people to go against their morals?

Very good questions. 

[Guest]

Society certainly believes marriage to have a malleable meaning and a mere social institution. God only knows what comes next.

 

No one ever wanted to force the meaning of marriage on others or make them marry if they didn't want to, but merely preserve the meaning as recognized throughout history. That's out the window now.

Historically, wasn't marriage about property rights? And didn't many of those legally married people have a honey on the side?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Really....that's a great question.

 

As I mentioned, in most places, sexual orientation isn't a protected class.  SO, it's currently legal, in most places, to refuse service for that reason, as it is legal to refuse service for basically any reason that doesn't involve a protected class.  I know the idea is then to go ahead and work to get sexual orientation added to protected classes.

 

But....where DOES that stop?  Should a cake baker with a moral objection to Halloween be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a Halloween party?  What about a caterer who specializes in vegan and allergy free dishes be allowed to refuse allergy free catering to a fur company party?  Should a printer be allowed to refuse to print pornographic images (assuming of course legally consenting adults all around.)  Can a therapist who has a moral objection to spanking be allowed to refuse services to family that does spank?  There are plenty of people who have moral objections to things that have nothing to do with religion and I genuinely wonder, where is the line that makes it ok to more or less force people to go against their morals?

 

*sigh*

 

Every time this topic comes up, someone starts with the "questions" that now will have to be answered because of gay marriage being recognized, yet each and every time the "questions" asked display a total lack of understanding of anti-discrimination laws.

 

In short, whatever service you normally provide to all, you must also provide to any member of a protected class.  If you do not provide that service to anyone, you do not have to provide it just because a member of a protected class requests it.  Protected classes are defined by law (state or federal) and generally are based on broad, identifiable group characteristics.  Narrowly defined beliefs/organizations do not and will not qualify as protected classes.

 

In general, simply ask yourself if the refusal is due to the service requested or who is requesting the service.  If it is the type of service, there can never be a discrimination claim.  If it based on who is requesting, then a claim only applies if the refusal is aimed at a protected class.

 

Your cake baker question:

--If the baker doesn't make Halloween cakes for anyone, then they don't have to make Halloween cake when requested.

 

Your catering question:

--Fur companies are not a protected class. 

 

Printer question:

--If the printer doesn't print porn for anyone, then they can refuse to print porn for anyone.  They can also pick and choose as needed as long as the refusal is not based on the member of the class requesting the service.

 

Therapist question:

--Absolutely.  Spankers are not a protected class.

 

 

 

[Laura Corin]

 

No one ever wanted to force the meaning of marriage on others or make them marry if they didn't want to, but merely preserve the meaning as recognized throughout history.

 

Throughout whose history and in what place?  In Medieval England, marriages often did not take place in church and were often not solemnised by a priest.

 

http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/love-and-marriage-medieval-england-customs-vows-ceremony

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Whoa...hold on.  The cake businesses that have been sued have been in the wedding business for many years and even decades prior, when no reasonable person thought that marriage could mean any two people, instead of a man and a woman.  This is not a legitimate argument. 

 

Wow, the Kleins were actually silenced about this topic under a gag order, which goes much farther than just the ridiculous $135,000 fine they received.  http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/   Ridiculous.

This is how the Kleins were treated by the pro-tolerance crowd: 

 

From claims that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness. Aaron and Melissa shared a number of the e-mails with TheBlaze.

“You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical b**ch.  I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business,†reads one e-mail.

“Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot. Enjoy hell,†reads another.

But it’s not just rhetoric that the husband and wife have encountered as a result of their refusal to provide the cake. They claim that their wedding vendors have been “badgered and harassed†until they refuse to do business with Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/31/economic-terrorism-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-gets-threats-could-close-down/

 

There have been several Christian bakeries targeted in this manner.

 

Yet when the tables are turned, this guy is turned away repeatedly:

 

[Videos included]

 

"So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us the right to have “Gay Marriage Is Wrong†on a cake and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said all sorts of profanities against Christians and ended the conversation by saying that she will make me a cookie with a large phallus on it.

 

It was all recorded. It will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual bakers were. Even after we completed our experiment we got a ton of hate messages saying that we were â€œhateful†for simply giving them a taste of their own medicine. They argued that the slogan “Gay Marriage Is Wrong†is not the same thing as “Support Gay Marriage†as if an opposite view of a view is hateful."

 

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado has been forced into "reverse conversion therapy" or "straight man's rehab", as he calls it, along with the staff, which must undergo regular training.  He also has to provide the government regular reports on any business he declined.  He has been in business for forty years. 

 

Ignoring the lolBlaze as a starting point for a thoughtful discussion, keep in mind that a Christian bakery is not required to decorate a cake in any manner requested.  As I have explained in other posts many, many times, you can refuse a service to anyone, as long as you do not refuse that service based on what class of people you believe that customer represents.

 

A Jewish deli doesn't have to serve a BLT to anyone.  An Italian restaurant can't refuse to make spaghetti for Asians.

 

[Guest]

*sigh*

 

You didn't read the first part. I get all that stuff about protected classes. My POINT is....how far do we go in creating protected classes?

I don't think you need to worry that porn-producers and fur salesmen will become a protected class.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

*sigh*

 

You didn't read the first part.  I get all that stuff about protected classes.  My POINT is....how far do we go in creating protected classes?

 

You can answer that fairly easily by looking at the history of the Civil Rights Act and how the concept of protected class plays into anti-discrimination laws.  In general, stand alone beliefs and associations cannot be classed in the manner you fear, and there is zero evidence that a movement is afoot to do so.

[TranquilMind]

Historically, wasn't marriage about property rights? And didn't many of those legally married people have a honey on the side?

 

Not to God it wasn't about property rights, which is why scripture says quite a bit about marriage and the family.

 

Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate truth. 

 

I don't know how many people have violated their vows, of course, but there is a price to pay for that, in your marriage, in your kids, in society.  You aren't just hurting your own spouse. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Throughout whose history and in what place?  In Medieval England, marriages often did not take place in church and were often not solemnised by a priest.

 

http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/love-and-marriage-medieval-england-customs-vows-ceremony

 

 

Tm's definition also blissfully ignores every other non-Christian culture and their definition of marriage.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not to God it wasn't about property rights, which is why scripture says quite a bit about marriage and the family.

 

Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate truth. 

 

I don't know how many people have violated their vows, of course, but there is a price to pay for that, in your marriage, in your kids, in society.  You aren't just hurting your own spouse. 

 

Which has what do with secular marriage?

 

[TranquilMind]

I don't think you need to worry that porn-producers and fur salesmen will become a protected class.

No, not if you frame it like that.

 

But if you frame it in terms of asserting First Amendment rights, that's a different story. 

 

[maize]

Throughout whose history and in what place? In Medieval England, marriages often did not take place in church and were often not solemnised by a priest.

 

http://www.historyextra.com/article/feature/love-and-marriage-medieval-england-customs-vows-ceremony

 

That was a very interesting read, thanks for sharing.

[TranquilMind]

Which has what do with secular marriage?

 

 

Um, did you bother to read the article that prompted this thread?  The writer twisted scripture to suit his purposes. 

 

It was not a secular assertion.  That is how and why people are discussing this. 

 

[HomeAgain]

Not to God it wasn't about property rights, which is why scripture says quite a bit about marriage and the family.

 

Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate truth. 

 

I don't know how many people have violated their vows, of course, but there is a price to pay for that, in your marriage, in your kids, in society.  You aren't just hurting your own spouse. 

 

You are correct, the bible does say a lot about marriage and family.  It is why Ezra 10 1:4 was often used to justify the laws in this country banning interracial marriage.

 

I'm not sure our country would like to return to that time, nor would I assume you are justifying a return to a biblical, many wives, non-integrated marriage standard.

[HomeAgain]

Absurd is a rude word to use here.

 

And to the extent that there is personalized artistry needed to provide a service, there is a public show of support/approval.  Which is why, even though I would make the cake myself, I defend those who don't feel they can do so.  Again, more so with photography, and less so with florists, on that same principle.

 

When the definition does not fit, it is absurd.  That is not rude.  Rude has its own definition, again, not applicable in this situation.

 

 

Providing a service to a private function is not public support.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Um, did you bother to read the article that prompted this thread?  The writer twisted scripture to suit his purposes. 

 

It was not a secular assertion.  That is how and why people are discussing this. 

 

 

This was in the post I quoted:

"Not to God it wasn't about property rights, which is why scripture says quite a bit about marriage and the family."

 

I ask again - what does this have to do with secular marriage?  Why is it even part of the discussion about marriage rights under secular law?

[Amira]

The reason for protected classes is because of historical mistreatment of those classes of people. Things like denying basics such as housing and employment to those classes. Things like getting killed simply because you're a member of that class. There is no denying that people have been discriminated against (and much worse) for being gay, just like people have been discriminated against because of their religion and race and ethnicity.

 

Most classes aren't protected and aren't going to become protected because they don't need the extra legal backup.

[TranquilMind]

You are correct, the bible does say a lot about marriage and family.  It is why Ezra 10 1:4 was often used to justify the laws in this country banning interracial marriage.

 

I'm not sure our country would like to return to that time, nor would I assume you are justifying a return to a biblical, many wives, non-integrated marriage standard.

 

Ezra 10 is about taking PAGAN wives, which the Israelites were prohibited from doing from the very beginning.  This violation weakened their nation as it diluted the faith.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with interRACIAL marriage.  This was about intermixing pagan beliefs into the Abrahamic faith. Read it yourself.

 

[wendyroo]

I don't think you need to worry that porn-producers and fur salesmen will become a protected class.

 

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

[HomeAgain]

Ezra 10 is about taking PAGAN wives, which the Israelites were prohibited from doing from the very beginning.  This violation weakened their nation as it diluted the faith.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with interRACIAL marriage.  This was about intermixing pagan beliefs into the Abrahamic faith. Read it yourself.

 

 

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.

[luuknam]

Selling a product is not at all the same thing as providing goods/services to a religious ceremony that is in violation of scriptural principles.

 

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.