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

[Scarlett]

The baker isn't participating in homosexuality.

He participates by providing services/delivery in a celebration of marriage. If it is not marriage, he should be free to decline. It was not marriage in those cases but the bakers got sued anyway.

I don't think he is participating. He is providing a service. And why does it matter to him if they use the cake for a wedding or for target practice.

[MercyA]

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 don't think participation, encouragement, or endorsement are quite the right words to use. I would not bake the cake because I would feel I was giving tacit approval to the relationship (not participating in it, encouraging it, or endorsing it). I would feel exactly the same way about making a cake for the wedding of two heterosexuals who divorced their previous spouses for reasons not allowed by Scripture. 

[MercyA]

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

 

That was wrong. 

[MercyA]

So no one actually wants to take a crack at this?  These are some of the practical issues that have to be worked out if you think Christians can't provide wedding goods and services to homosexuals.

 

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

 

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

[TranquilMind]

How many have there been?  I am only aware of Oregon and Colorado.  You have mentioned "several" in other posts.  Could you please cite them?

 

Wedding artistic services and even venues, not just cakes though I found a couple more of those. Those two cake cases were very chilling in effect.  Again, it is not about the recipient, it is about the event, a very specific ceremony that is a sacrament of the faith, ordained by God to reflect a Holy relationship. The don't feel free to simply alter that in favor of current norms and feel like providing artistic creations for something that is violative of scripture is not permissible.    

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/washington-florist-sued-refusing-provide-flowers-sex-wedding/story?id=18922065

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/

 

http://christiannews.net/2014/08/15/ny-farm-fined-13000-for-declining-lesbian-wedding-ordered-to-prove-staff-training/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/

 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/05/13/religious-artists-file-lawsuit-over-phoenix-lgbt-non-bias-law/84305144/

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

[Frances]

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

At least for me, the lack of consistency and the sometimes accompanying hypocrisy are the the main reasons I can't currently support some kind of religious exemption for bakers or others.

 

In the Oregon case of the Kleins, the bakery was chosen because they had knowingly baked a wonderful cake for one of the bride's mother's fifth (? not sure on exact number, but it was very high) wedding. After they declined the gay marriage order on religious grounds, they were contacted by reporters for some newspapers and agreed to bake all sorts of different cakes that went again Bible verses, including pagan ritual cakes, divorce cakes, dog weddings, etc. Also, their behavior after the discrimination complaint was filed (no one was sued, they were simply reported to the appropriate state agency) was anything but Christ-like, and resulted in great hardship for the family involved, as detailed earlier. In a case like this, it really does seem to me as though their sincerely held religious beliefs only extend as far as their opposition to gay marriage.

 

For me, a quite different case was that of a baker in CO, who before gay marriage became legal, had a long list if services he would not provide to anyone due to his religious beliefs, including such things as no Halloween themed items. But problems arose when gay marriage became legal and he refused to provide wedding cakes for them. In contrast to the Kleins, in interviews and articles, he came across as very sincere in his beliefs and not just opposed to gay marriage. Reading about him and watching interviews, I actually felt quite sympathetic towards him. Ultimately, he decided to keep his bakery open, but stopped making wedding cakes for anyone.

[TranquilMind]

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

 

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

 

Yeah, totally not doing that.  I do know a photographer that does primarily weddings though and she is really excellent.  I hope she doesn't get sued. 

[TranquilMind]

At least for me, the lack of consistency and the sometimes accompanying hypocrisy are the the main reasons I can't currently support some kind of religious exemption for bakers or others.

 

In the Oregon case of the Kleins, the bakery was chosen because they had knowingly baked a wonderful cake for one of the bride's mother's fifth (? not sure on exact number, but it was very high) wedding. After they declined the gay marriage order on religious grounds, they were contacted by reporters for some newspapers and agreed to bake all sorts of different cakes that went again Bible verses, including pagan ritual cakes, divorce cakes, dog weddings, etc. Also, their behavior after the discrimination complaint was filed (no one was sued, they were simply reported to the appropriate state agency) was anything but Christ-like, and resulted in great hardship for the family involved, as detailed earlier. In a case like this, it really does seem to me as though their sincerely held religious beliefs only extend as far as their opposition to gay marriage.

 

For me, a quite different case was that of a baker in CO, who before gay marriage became legal, had a long list if services he would not provide to anyone due to his religious beliefs, including such things as no Halloween themed items. But problems arose when gay marriage became legal and he refused to provide wedding cakes for them. In contrast to the Kleins, in interviews and articles, he came across as very sincere in his beliefs and not just opposed to gay marriage. Reading about him and watching interviews, I actually felt quite sympathetic towards him. Ultimately, he decided to keep his bakery open, but stopped making wedding cakes for anyone.

Can you give me a link on the Kleins about where they agreed to make cakes with anti-biblical phrases on them?  I didn't see anything like that. 

 

I agree that the outcome of the Phillips case in CO was egregious.   He was very consistent in everything and was forced to "retrain" his 87 year old mother. 

 

So now everyone loses out on wedding cakes because of that couple with the ax to grind. 

[TranquilMind]

That was wrong. 

 

LOL.  See what I mean. 

 

There is an element that is unable to rise above personal attacks.  It's pretty sad really. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Wedding artistic services and even venues, not just cakes though I found a couple more of those. Those two cake cases were very chilling in effect.  Again, it is not about the recipient, it is about the event, a very specific ceremony that is a sacrament of the faith, ordained by God to reflect a Holy relationship. The don't feel free to simply alter that in favor of current norms and feel like providing artistic creations for something that is violative of scripture is not permissible.    

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/washington-florist-sued-refusing-provide-flowers-sex-wedding/story?id=18922065

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/

 

http://christiannews.net/2014/08/15/ny-farm-fined-13000-for-declining-lesbian-wedding-ordered-to-prove-staff-training/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/

 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/05/13/religious-artists-file-lawsuit-over-phoenix-lgbt-non-bias-law/84305144/

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

 

 

You specifically referenced "several" bakeries earlier. 

 

One of those in your links is in Ireland, which I will ignore as I do not know their laws regarding public accommodations.  One of your links actually is about "Christian" artists that have not faced any complaints.

 

Cakes are not art.  Neither are flowers. 

 

[TranquilMind]

If my job was baking:  I would be very able to make a cake for a customer while silently disagreeing with them in every way.  Making the cake doesn't mean I agree with their views.  I think gender reveal cake/cupcakes are the stupidest thing in the world.  If it was my job, I would make them anyway.  It wouldn't imply that I approved of it in anyway.

 

My parents have a friend who is a painter, and he has gotten into trouble b/c he will disagree about colors people pick to paint their house.  He will tell people they have picked ugly colors. 

 

Well, it is not quite comparable, but I heard the entire time I was growing up that if he is a painter and his job is painting, he can just paint the ugly colors.  Nobody thinks he picked out the colors.  Nobody thinks he is giving a stamp of approval to the design scheme.

 

But how unbelievably rude is it to tell somebody you don't want to paint their house b/c you don't like the color scheme? 

 

Now this is a stretch, I know.

 

But when I have a plumber come and he tells me "well, there is the cheaper way, and then there is the better way," if I pick the cheaper way, then that is on me, it isn't on the plumber. 

 

He is not giving his consent or approval of the plumbing decision I make.  He is just replacing a part or ordering a new water heater, or doing a fix-it job so we can keep our water heater longer even if it has a small leak. 

 

Even if his personal opinion based on his own values and life experiences is that we should just pay for a new water heater already. 

 

Your examples differ from religious convictions though.

 

I agree gender reveal cakes are stupid, but they aren't anti-biblical.

 

I agree that some wall colors are just ugly and would probably welcome the honesty if a painter would volunteer his opinion. That's fine.  I bet he does lose jobs though.   But choice of paint color is not a matter of religious conviction.  If the Bible, the Word of God, said that Christians could only have blue walls, well, then you would have a point.

Your plumber is merely speaking from his experience as to how long your water heater will work.  It isn't a matter of religious faith. 

 

None of these examples have anything to do with the topic here.  These are merely varying opinions on subjects that are not matters of faith, and all opinions are equally valid. 

 

[TranquilMind]

You specifically referenced "several" bakeries earlier. 

 

One of those in your links is in Ireland, which I will ignore as I do not know their laws regarding public accommodations.  One of your links actually is about "Christian" artists that have not faced any complaints.

 

Cakes are not art.  Neither are flowers. 

 

There are three rather well known bakery cases, all of which I indicated, both in discussion and one in that block of cites, with a link.  Two I did not link because you already know about the Phillips and the Klein cases, the most egregious and famous examples. 

 

That's three bakeries, and then there are several other related wedding services lawsuits.

Three is "several", but then you are just splitting hairs rather than responding on the merits. 

 

And excuse me,  but cakes, flowers, and photography and art for invitations are all "artistic creations" for a purpose, weddings in this case.    Those are the art media of those artists. 

ETA: correction of typos and formatting

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[MyLittleBears]

Well I know my comment will not be received well by Christian and non-Christian alike. The couple could have chosen to boycott here and find someone who would bake their cake. Instead they forced the issue by suing instead of allowing her the liberty of choosing that which went contrary to here own conscious. This seems unkind just as much as her choice was unkind in not baking them the cake. There are so many instances where secular leaning people boycott Christian business simply based on their Christian stance on political views. No one makes a stink about that. Likewise, the argument can be made that Christians should not buy alcoholic beverages because they will contribute to a business that supplies alcoholics with their vice. It can be construed as legalism. She has a right to voice her opinion and should be able to do so without the threat of being sued, but it is unloving IMHO. She would have shown the true nature of God's love if she had just made them a cake. 

[happi duck]

...

 

So now everyone loses out on wedding cakes because of that couple with the ax to grind.

That's okay, they can go to Costco!

 

;)

[TranquilMind]

This is because the Christians are the ones with privilege and power in this situation. Discrimination tends to be a problem for minorities, not for the powerful majority.

 

I will concede that the sort of Christians that make a brouhaha over what event a cake is baked for are, indeed, in a minority. However, it is 1. a minority of their own making, and 2. protected by the freedom to not be in the cake business.

 

Muslims who have moral objections to selling alcohol based on their religion usually don't take jobs in liquor stores. Jews who wish to keep their religious laws in the restaurant industry run kosher delis and such. They still sell their products to people NOT of their religion.

 

The Christians who were longtime cake bakers worked in this industry for decades, long before gay marriage was a thing.

 

Why should they be forced to "not be in the cake business" just because society just passed a law that violates their faith.  Not understanding why you think they have to bow instead of simply continuing to do weddings as they have for 40 years (in some cases).   Why can't we respect both interests?  It isn't as if only these Christian cake bakers, few as they are, hold the access to all cakes in existence. 

[TranquilMind]

That's okay, they can go to Costco!

 

;)

 

I sure would.  Are you kidding me? If Costco had been around when I got married decades ago, I would have totally purchased everything there. 

 

I was frugal way before it was cool. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There are three rather well known bakery cases, all of which I indicated, both in discussion and one in that block of cites, with a link.  Two I did not link because you already know about the Phillips and the Klein cases, the most egregious and famous examples. 

 

That's three bakeries, and then there are several other related wedding services lawsuits.

Three is "several", but then you are just splitting hairs rather than respond on the merits. 

 

And excuse me,  but cakes, flowers, and photography and art for invitations are all "artistic creations" for a purpose.    That is the art medium of those artists. 

 

Well first you claimed bakeries were being targeted.

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/627029-wowanother-look-at-the-whole-gay-cake-baker-idea/page-3?do=findComment&comment=7250692

 

I think finding only 3 cases in the United States makes the "targeting" claim questionable.

 

You also said:

"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."

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/627029-wowanother-look-at-the-whole-gay-cake-baker-idea/page-3?do=findComment&comment=7250748

 

You made no mention of other wedding related services in those posts.

 

When asked for links, you provide two related to bakeries (one in another country) and even include a business that has not received any complaints.

[happi duck]

I think part of my inability to see the other side is this:

I don't understand how baking a cake is against someone's religious convictions. I just don't.

 

There are so many ways this goes sideways.

 

Besides, no one waits on pins and needles for their local baker's approval of their marriage. "They said yes to our cake order! We can now marry with a clear conscious because 'Cakes by Connie' says gay marriage is a-ok!"

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well I know my comment will not be received well by Christian and non-Christian alike. The couple could have chosen to boycott here and find someone who would bake their cake. Instead they forced the issue by suing instead of allowing her the liberty of choosing that which went contrary to here own conscious. This seems unkind just as much as her choice was unkind in not baking them the cake. There are so many instances where secular leaning people boycott Christian business simply based on their Christian stance on political views. No one makes a stink about that. Likewise, the argument can be made that Christians should not buy alcoholic beverages because they will contribute to a business that supplies alcoholics with their vice. It can be construed as legalism. She has a right to voice her opinion and should be able to do so without the threat of being sued, but it is unloving IMHO. She would have shown the true nature of God's love if she had just made them a cake. 

 

Suing/filing a complaint when someone breaks the law is unkind?  I would argue it is the appropriate response to the initial illegal ("unkind") act.

 

[happi duck]

I sure would. Are you kidding me? If Costco had been around when I got married decades ago, I would have totally purchased everything there.

 

I was frugal way before it was cool.

 

Their cakes are delicious!

 

*wonders about buying a Costco membership*

[Frances]

Can you give me a link on the Kleins about where they agreed to make cakes with anti-biblical phrases on them? I didn't see anything like that.

 

I agree that the outcome of the Phillips case in CO was egregious. He was very consistent in everything and was forced to "retrain" his 87 year old mother.

 

So now everyone loses out on wedding cakes because of that couple with the ax to grind.

The Bible phrases weren't on the cakes, they were for things that went against Bible verses. I can't link on my device right now, but google Willamette Week and Kleins and you should get several articles. They detail exactly what the reporters asked for when requesting the cakes.

 

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the outcome in CO was egregious. I thought his decision to stop making wedding cakes for anyone, but keep the rest of his business open, was just further proof that he was sincere in his religious beliefs. It was a solution that allowed him to stay in business, follow public accommodation laws, and not violate his religious beliefs.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

At least for me, the lack of consistency and the sometimes accompanying hypocrisy are the the main reasons I can't currently support some kind of religious exemption for bakers or others.

 

In addition to the inconsistencies, the "strongly held religious beliefs" exemptions opens the door to rampant discrimination.  I personally don''t want to go back to the days when minority groups had to guess where they would be denied service.

 

[bibiche]

That was wrong. 

 

Was it a snipe? Yes. Was it wrong?  I don't know. What I do think is wrong is homophobia, bigotry, and support of discrimination, all of which TM has demonstrated on this thread.  Would it have been better to just call those things out?  Perhaps, but then I would have just received the famous weary ad hominem  sigh, even though the problem I have is with the horrendously backward position of the poster, not with the poster (although I suppose it is difficult to separate the two).  So yes, a remark referencing the barbaric and ineffective practice of conversion therapy that many homophobes endorse was my choice.

 

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong.  And people can quote a religious work as the reason to discriminate much as they want, but the fact of the matter is we live in a secular country. The Bible and, in particular, certain individual interpretations of the Bible, simply do not excuse not following the law.

[Frances]

Well I know my comment will not be received well by Christian and non-Christian alike. The couple could have chosen to boycott here and find someone who would bake their cake. Instead they forced the issue by suing instead of allowing her the liberty of choosing that which went contrary to here own conscious. This seems unkind just as much as her choice was unkind in not baking them the cake. There are so many instances where secular leaning people boycott Christian business simply based on their Christian stance on political views. No one makes a stink about that. Likewise, the argument can be made that Christians should not buy alcoholic beverages because they will contribute to a business that supplies alcoholics with their vice. It can be construed as legalism. She has a right to voice her opinion and should be able to do so without the threat of being sued, but it is unloving IMHO. She would have shown the true nature of God's love if she had just made them a cake.

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

[Lecka]

I personally am protected by an anti-discrimination law in my town.

 

Did you know that some people don't want to rent to members of the military and their families? 

 

Did you know we had a reputation for trashing properties? 

 

So, what are me and my family supposed to do?  (We ended up buying a home, and it has worked out well for us.) 

 

Is it mean of me to sue someone if they don't want to rent to my family, but do want to rent to another family with the same number of people (etc) just because they are not in the military?

 

Sorry, I don't think it is fair.  It is just not fair.

 

And it gets so old to hear people who don't realize my husband is in the Army talking about how they would never rent to people in the Army! 

 

Sure, I doubt they have a religious conviction there, but it is not fair to me, and it harms me when I have to pay more for rent and utilities (as the only place we could find had very poor insulation) while other people get better deals on nicer houses. 

 

So no, that isn't a religious conviction.  But it is discrimination and it is not nice.

 

So I don't understand why that should be legal. 

 

And, it is not here, we do have a legal protection, because there is an anti-discrimination law in our town that does include the military. 

 

I don't have any other thing about me that would lead to me being discriminated against. 

 

But I don't think it is fair to say it is my problem and I should just look for another (shoddier, more expensive) place to live, and let the person discriminating just go on about their business as if it is perfectly fine and acceptable in the community. 

 

Locally I picture you taking the side of landlords and saying "how mean it is to make them rent to those horrible military people, everyone knows they destroy property." 

 

But frankly I am glad that is not an accepted community standard.  Instead it is considered unacceptable by the town's representatives. 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Lecka

[ktgrok]

Well I know my comment will not be received well by Christian and non-Christian alike. The couple could have chosen to boycott here and find someone who would bake their cake. Instead they forced the issue by suing instead of allowing her the liberty of choosing that which went contrary to here own conscious. This seems unkind just as much as her choice was unkind in not baking them the cake. 

 

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

[TranquilMind]

Their cakes are delicious!

 

*wonders about buying a Costco membership*

 

I've had a membership ever since they opened in my town.  Costco sends me a check every year of 3% of what I spend there (I think it is).  Covers at least one or two grocery runs.

 

[TXBeth]

Can you give me a link on the Kleins about where they agreed to make cakes with anti-biblical phrases on them?  I didn't see anything like that. 

 

I agree that the outcome of the Phillips case in CO was egregious.   He was very consistent in everything and was forced to "retrain" his 87 year old mother. 

 

So now everyone loses out on wedding cakes because of that couple with the ax to grind. 

 

http://www.wweek.com/restaurants/2013/05/29/the-cake-wars/

[TranquilMind]

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

 

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

 

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

 

[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.

 

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.

Au contraire.

 

If the baker, say, believes that marriage is designed to be between one man and one woman, and that facilitating a different structure is morally wrong, then whether or not people are of his own faith, if they fit that structure it is not hypocritical for him to serve them.

[TranquilMind]

http://www.wweek.com/restaurants/2013/05/29/the-cake-wars/

 

What an inaccurate and biased article:

 

This is just flat wrong information:

 

Jesus, of course, never commented on gay people, but did tell his followers to "love your neighbor as yourself." Instead, the widely cited Bible verse condemning homosexuality comes from Leviticus, a book that also prohibits getting tattooed or eating rabbit.

 

I guess they never heard of the book of Romans. 

 

And secondly, some callers attempted to entrap Christian bakeries.  Was this before or after the lawsuits? 

 

The response in each case (baby with boyfriend, divorce cake, cloning stem cells (??), Non kosher requests (Hello...they are Christians!), solstice party) is exactly the same.  The one who answered the phone gave the price. 

 

None of these are the same situation as being asked to create an artistic creation for a wedding that is not a wedding in your faith. 

 

 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

I personally am protected by an anti-discrimination law in my town.

 

Did you know that some people don't want to rent to members of the military and their families? 

 

Did you know we had a reputation for trashing properties? 

 

So, what are me and my family supposed to do?  (We ended up buying a home, and it has worked out well for us.) 

 

Is it mean of me to sue someone if they don't want to rent to my family, but do want to rent to another family with the same number of people (etc) just because they are not in the military?

 

Sorry, I don't think it is fair.  It is just not fair.

 

And it gets so old to hear people who don't realize my husband is in the Army talking about how they would never rent to people in the Army! 

 

Sure, I doubt they have a religious conviction there, but it is not fair to me, and it harms me when I have to pay more for rent and utilities (as the only place we could find had very poor insulation) while other people get better deals on nicer houses. 

 

So no, that isn't a religious conviction.  But it is discrimination and it is not nice.

 

So I don't understand why that should be legal. 

 

And, it is not here, we do have a legal protection, because there is an anti-discrimination law in our town that does include the military. 

 

I don't have any other thing about me that would lead to me being discriminated against. 

 

But I don't think it is fair to say it is my problem and I should just look for another (shoddier, more expensive) place to live, and let the person discriminating just go on about their business as if it is perfectly fine and acceptable in the community. 

 

Locally I picture you taking the side of landlords and saying "how mean it is to make them rent to those horrible military people, everyone knows they destroy property." 

 

But frankly I am glad that is not an accepted community standard.  Instead it is considered unacceptable by the town's representatives. 

But this thread is about religious discrimination against a very narrow class of Christians who do not want to create artistic creations for weddings that violate scripture.  That's it.

 

All the rest are other issues, not scriptural issues.

 

  I understand what you are saying, that you don't like what you are encountering, especially since I was a landlord for nearly two decades. Actually, if I had any bias there, it would probably be pro-military. Military members know how to follow expectations in Leases, and they have a CO,  but maybe they have to move a lot.  Maybe that is the issue.   I know of no cases where military members have destroyed property.   Most of my contractors are ex-military.  They are neat and orderly in their work, a plus to me.

[Liz CA]

All other aspects aside, what happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

Or "No shoes, no shirt, no service?"

 

[TXBeth]

TranquilMind,

I know this has been explained to you several times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. This is very frustrating because you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so it seems as though you are just pretending to not understand, which is a pet peeve of mine.

In your opinion, homosexuality is proscribed by Scripture and interracial marriage is not. Fine. But what about the person who has a sincere religious belief (doesn't have to be Biblically sound, since it's about the sincerity of the belief, not its conformity with Christianity) that different races should not mix. Should they be allowed to run a whites-only swimming pool? Or imagine that you are on a road trip and stop at a hotel, but when you ask for a room, the secretary explains that you can have a room, but you should know they don't allow women to use the fitness room or be unaccompanied in public areas due to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Would you not have a problem with that?

If you think a business should be allowed to discriminate based on any sincerely-held religious belief (even if that means excluding black people or women or Christians), fine. I think it's a horrible idea, but at least it's consistent.

If, on the other hand, you think that only Christians who agree with your interpretation of the Bible should be allowed to discriminate, I hope you can see how hypocritical and illogical that is.

[Slartibartfast]

I think if people spent more time worrying about "Do unto others," than they did about semantics then the world would be a nicer place.

[TXBeth]

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

 

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

 

 

YOUR Scripture doesn't. But what if someone else's Scripture does? Does that make it ok for them to discriminate?

[Slartibartfast]

TranquilMind,

I know this has been explained to you several times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. This is very frustrating because you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so it seems as though you are just pretending to not understand, which is a pet peeve of mine.

In your opinion, homosexuality is proscribed by Scripture and interracial marriage is not. Fine. But what about the person who has a sincere religious belief (doesn't have to be Biblically sound, since it's about the sincerity of the belief, not its conformity with Christianity) that different races should not mix. Should they be allowed to run a whites-only swimming pool? Or imagine that you are on a road trip and stop at a hotel, but when you ask for a room, the secretary explains that you can have a room, but you should know they don't allow women to use the fitness room or be unaccompanied in public areas due to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Would you not have a problem with that?

If you think a business should be allowed to discriminate based on any sincerely-held religious belief (even if that means excluding black people or women or Christians), fine. I think it's a horrible idea, but at least it's consistent.

If, on the other hand, you think that only Christians who agree with your interpretation of the Bible should be allowed to discriminate, I hope you can see how hypocritical and illogical that is.

 

 

Pretty sure I heard a lot of preaching about interracial marriage when I was a kid. One can say that it isn't in scripture but people did use scripture to debate it for quite some time.

 

They weren't making things up, they were just making the scripture suit their bigotry. This is the same thing.

 

It is my opinion that one shouldn't use scripture as a guide on how to judge people but on how to love people. 

[Ravin]

Wedding artistic services and even venues, not just cakes though I found a couple more of those. Those two cake cases were very chilling in effect.  Again, it is not about the recipient, it is about the event, a very specific ceremony that is a sacrament of the faith, ordained by God to reflect a Holy relationship. The don't feel free to simply alter that in favor of current norms and feel like providing artistic creations for something that is violative of scripture is not permissible.    

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/washington-florist-sued-refusing-provide-flowers-sex-wedding/story?id=18922065

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/

 

http://christiannews.net/2014/08/15/ny-farm-fined-13000-for-declining-lesbian-wedding-ordered-to-prove-staff-training/

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/

 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/05/13/religious-artists-file-lawsuit-over-phoenix-lgbt-non-bias-law/84305144/

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32791239

 

So, in which denomination is the cake part of the actual wedding ceremony? Last time I checked, cake is traditionally served at a wedding RECEPTION, which is not part of the ceremony.

[Greta]

I don't think participation, encouragement, or endorsement are quite the right words to use. I would not bake the cake because I would feel I was giving tacit approval to the relationship (not participating in it, encouraging it, or endorsing it). I would feel exactly the same way about making a cake for the wedding of two heterosexuals who divorced their previous spouses for reasons not allowed by Scripture. 

 

 

I certainly respect the fact that you would at least be consistent about it, and not single out gays as the only people who would not get your cake (unlike any real life examples that I've personally read about).  But I can't say that I understand why you (or anyone) would feel like the cake is giving tacit approval for whatever is done with the cake.  

 

To me, as long as the product itself that I am providing is not immoral, then what is done with that morally-neutral product is up to the person who purchased it, not up to me.  Forgive me for this uncreative example, but I could work, say, for a company that makes bricks.  Those bricks are going to, by and large, be used to build things.  One of those bricks might be used to damage someone's property, or even to hurt or kill someone.  But the brick that I'm selling is morally neutral, and I am not responsible for what's done with it.  

 

Selling a dangerous, deadly, or destructive product obviously is a whole different situation, and that is the point where my conscience as a Christian would make me stand up and say, "no, I won't be part of this".  

[FaithManor]

Interesting that it is always LGBT talked about as "unscriptural". So for those that think business owners should be able to pick and choose from sins in order to decide whom they will or will not serve, to what extent do you take this? Divorced individuals? Do you think as a mere business owner you have a right to civil records proving the prospective customer has never been married? Affidavits from clergy promising the couple will not be unequally yoked? Polygamy is acceptable in scripture and not even prohibited in the New Testament the only caveat being those who aspire to eldership, not an issue for regular believers. So no cakes for gays, but cakes for polygamists?

 

The KKK interprets scripture to indicate racial inequality and white supremacy thus makinf interacial marriages a sin in their religion. So you are supportive of white supremacists discriminating in a public business against non whites? Doug Philips did not pay wages to female employees but to their fathers or husbands for the female employees work due to a closely held belief that women should not have any money of their own. That is okay too?

 

Religious belief is so nebulous, if allowed to rule the public sphere it is quite capable of sending this country back to the Stone Ages.

 

I have a lot of closely held beliefs (United Methodist) and zero desire to see them legislated into practice in the public sphere. Allowing public businesses to openly violate civil rights laws is absolutely government endorsement of religious belief, forcing religious practice on others which is antithetical to Christ's message.

[momacacia]

I do think there is a First Amendment speech argument to be made in these cases. While the bakery or florist or a chef are in a business, they are also in an artistic business, not unlike a wedding singer, for example. I find it pretty interesting that people who would otherwise, eg, not want someone compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance would want someone compelled to use their artistic expression sanctioning something they opposed to.

 

Their product is an expression of their artistic abilities, and that expression "speaks" on the topic at hand. I'm sure most of us would consider bakers, chefs and photographers to be artists (and they'd consider themselves as such), so requiring them to make such a statement in a particular arena is forced speech.

[Lecka]

It happens that there is one anti-discrimination law in my town.

 

There is debate about whether or not to include LGBT.

 

Right now LGBT is included in the anti-discrimination law.

 

But I am right there in the list with them.

 

It is still discrimination. It is still not fair.

 

Sure, you personally wouldn't discriminate against me. Thanks, I appreciate it. I really do.

 

But other people do discriminate in housing and I need the legal protection I think.

 

I am focusing on the discrimination and not the reason given for the discrimination, I guess.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Lecka

[Ravin]

All other aspects aside, what happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

Or "No shoes, no shirt, no service?"

 

They still apply, unless your reason for refusing is discrimination against protected classes of individuals--i.e., based on race, religion, veteran status, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, family status, or gender identity. Specifics may vary by local jurisdiction.

 

"No shoes, no shirt, no service" does not discriminate against any protected class of people, unless the rule was made expressly for the purpose of keeping out members of the local religious commune who go shoeless because of their beliefs. 

[City Mouse]

I did not read all the post, so please forgive me if this has already been asked, but for those of you who would refuse to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple, would you also refuse to make a cake fo a person who is obese since gluttony is also a sin?

 

Is is "ok" to pick and choose which sins you enforce?

[Ravin]

I do think there is a First Amendment speech argument to be made in these cases. While the bakery or florist or a chef are in a business, they are also in an artistic business, not unlike a wedding singer, for example. I find it pretty interesting that people who would otherwise, eg, not want someone compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance would want someone compelled to use their artistic expression sanctioning something they opposed to.

 

Their product is an expression of their artistic abilities, and that expression "speaks" on the topic at hand. I'm sure most of us would consider bakers, chefs and photographers to be artists (and they'd consider themselves as such), so requiring them to make such a statement in a particular arena is forced speech.

 

The cake baker cannot refuse to sell a cake to someone because they are, say, Muslim. They could refuse to write Arabic calligraphy on the cake. For another example, the cake baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a couple because they are gay. They can, however, refuse to decorate a cake with a gay pride rainbow or same-gender toppers.

 

Arguably, the wedding singer cannot turn down a wedding just because the individuals marrying are of a different religion or are same-gender. They can, however, refuse to sing Lady Gaga or Village People songs. Or the Macarena, but I'm not sure you could stay in business as a wedding singer without the Macarena.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

All other aspects aside, what happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

Or "No shoes, no shirt, no service?"

 

Well as it turns out, the bolded has not always been legal.

[MercyA]

Was it a snipe? Yes. Was it wrong?  I don't know. What I do think is wrong is homophobia, bigotry, and support of discrimination, all of which TM has demonstrated on this thread.  Would it have been better to just call those things out?  Perhaps, but then I would have just received the famous weary ad hominem  sigh, even though the problem I have is with the horrendously backward position of the poster, not with the poster (although I suppose it is difficult to separate the two).  So yes, a remark referencing the barbaric and ineffective practice of conversion therapy that many homophobes endorse was my choice.

 

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong.  And people can quote a religious work as the reason to discriminate much as they want, but the fact of the matter is we live in a secular country. The Bible and, in particular, certain individual interpretations of the Bible, simply do not excuse not following the law.

 

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

 

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

Edited October 20, 2016 by MercyA

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind,

I know this has been explained to you several times, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. This is very frustrating because you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so it seems as though you are just pretending to not understand, which is a pet peeve of mine.

In your opinion, homosexuality is proscribed by Scripture and interracial marriage is not. Fine. But what about the person who has a sincere religious belief (doesn't have to be Biblically sound, since it's about the sincerity of the belief, not its conformity with Christianity) that different races should not mix. Should they be allowed to run a whites-only swimming pool? Or imagine that you are on a road trip and stop at a hotel, but when you ask for a room, the secretary explains that you can have a room, but you should know they don't allow women to use the fitness room or be unaccompanied in public areas due to their sincerely held religious beliefs. Would you not have a problem with that?

If you think a business should be allowed to discriminate based on any sincerely-held religious belief (even if that means excluding black people or women or Christians), fine. I think it's a horrible idea, but at least it's consistent.

If, on the other hand, you think that only Christians who agree with your interpretation of the Bible should be allowed to discriminate, I hope you can see how hypocritical and illogical that is.

 

 

No, you are attempting to conflate an entirely different concept with this issue.  It is not discrimination at all to adhere to scriptural beliefs on marriage; it is simply adherence to scripture, as one may have done one's entire life, such as in the Phillips case.   Homosexuality is indeed proscribed by scripture.  Being a woman, or Native American, or female is not.  You cannot conflate the two.

 

Other "sincerely held beliefs" may exist but the argument is not on another basis.  I have a sincerely held belief that my rentals shall be pet-free.  I'm permitted to have this belief and act on it, but it isn't because it is scriptural.  It is just my requirement due to allergies and it doesn't violate any protected classes (putting the whole burgeoning "every animal is now an ESA" to the side for purposes of this discussion).

 

Here we are talking about a very limited issue, solely and specifically limited to whether we should be able to force artistic creations for weddings for Christian cake makers, photographers, etc, since that is the only place that there does not seem to be room for retaining one's religious beliefs contrary to the new culturally mandated norm.

 

Your question is already completely covered by anti-discrimination laws, and protected classes are already established.   You cannot run an "all white" swimming pool in this country.   You cannot run a Christian- only public school.  You cannot run a Female-only restaurant.

The hotel situation is already covered because you cannot discriminate against travelers on the basis of gender as a public accommodation.  

 

But guess what - if some woman of another faith tells me that her hotel is run by members of her faith and that she would recommend I not use the fitness room, I would probably raise an eyebrow and just abide by her request.  I might say that I didn't understand that it was a private business when I made the reservation, or some such thing to alert her that I know what is going on here, but I would probably just move on, if this were the extent of it. 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TranquilMind

[MercyA]

I certainly respect the fact that you would at least be consistent about it, and not single out gays as the only people who would not get your cake (unlike any real life examples that I've personally read about).  But I can't say that I understand why you (or anyone) would feel like the cake is giving tacit approval for whatever is done with the cake.  

 

To me, as long as the product itself that I am providing is not immoral, then what is done with that morally-neutral product is up to the person who purchased it, not up to me.  Forgive me for this uncreative example, but I could work, say, for a company that makes bricks.  Those bricks are going to, by and large, be used to build things.  One of those bricks might be used to damage someone's property, or even to hurt or kill someone.  But the brick that I'm selling is morally neutral, and I am not responsible for what's done with it.  

 

Selling a dangerous, deadly, or destructive product obviously is a whole different situation, and that is the point where my conscience as a Christian would make me stand up and say, "no, I won't be part of this".  

 

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

Edited October 20, 2016 by MercyA

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I do think there is a First Amendment speech argument to be made in these cases. While the bakery or florist or a chef are in a business, they are also in an artistic business, not unlike a wedding singer, for example. I find it pretty interesting that people who would otherwise, eg, not want someone compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance would want someone compelled to use their artistic expression sanctioning something they opposed to.

 

Their product is an expression of their artistic abilities, and that expression "speaks" on the topic at hand. I'm sure most of us would consider bakers, chefs and photographers to be artists (and they'd consider themselves as such), so requiring them to make such a statement in a particular arena is forced speech.

 

There is no First Amendment case to be made that is sufficient to override the greater good achieved from not allowing discrimination in the public sphere..  Remember, these laws apply to public accommodations only (retail businesses, hotels, venues, etc).  When you open a business to serve the public, you don't get to cry "forced speech" when asked to serve all of the public.

 

And every time you think you have a unique argument as to why discrimination should be okay *this one time*, keep in mind that is has likely already been litigated regarding racial discrimination.

Edited October 19, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix