Wedding participation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
In wedding preparations in general, is doing a cake for a couple considered an inside, personal, validating participation with a couple?

If you believe, from Mt 19, that there are remarriages that are actually adultery, and you are cakemaker, and you know a couple is violating Mt 19 because you knew both of them in previous situations, and you do a cake for them, I can see where that approaches a contradiction.

But if you don't know the circumstances, and don't know them at all, and they request a cake, I don't know that that is validating something you disapprove of.

In the Kennewick, WA, case, I think the baker knew the homosexual couple quite well and had told them she would not validate their marriage in other ways than just not baking for them. I recall they respected that, because they did not pursue her; it was the unprecedented act of the AG pursuing her.

I would still like to hear on wedding prep in general: which functions are close, intimate validation? Certainly the pastor and best people are. If the pastor asks for "any objections" then all the audience is.
 

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I have never attended a wedding where the cake was part of the ceremony. At every wedding that I have attended, the cake was severed at a reception that followed the wedding.

It would seem to me that a baker might have reason to object to preparing communion bread that would be used during the wedding ceremony, since that would actually endorse the marriage. However, a baker has no reason to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, because that is not part of the wedding ceremony.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
so what i dont understand is that the real problem is not addressed. Bible-based Christians have Biblical solid reasons for not validating the entire ceremony. I don't know why this issue is gravitating toward cakemaking.

In what Archivist said above, it sounds as though the ceremony is Biblically approved. It may be legal in certain places, but this distinction wasn't made. There is no basis at all in Scripture for approving it.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,278.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Part of the problem is that people see everything being done for a wedding as part of a wedding. The reception is after the wedding, but everyone thinks of it as part of the wedding even though it is not part of the cerimony.
 
Upvote 0

Jade Margery

Stranger in a strange land
Oct 29, 2008
3,018
311
✟12,415.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
In Relationship
It is all discrimination, and hinges on the rather simple question - do people and businesses have the right to discriminate against customers for reasons that do not affect their ability to conduct business? (For instance, it would not be unreasonable to deny service to someone who has made late payments in the past or who returned rented objects with damage, but a person's skin color or sexual orientation does not affect their ability to pay for goods.)

I think a good argument can be made that, regardless of whether it is destructive to society or not, an individual owning a private business should have the right to deny service to whoever they want. Black or white, male or female, gay or straight, muslim or jew or buddhist or christian or atheist, it doesn't matter who is being discriminated against, all should be allowed.

It's not an argument I agree with, but I think it can be made.

So I will ask those in favor of these 'religious rights' - would it be okay for the baker to refuse service to an interracial couple? How about a christian couple?

If you say yes to both, then by all means argue onward. But, if your endorsement of discrimination extends only to the prejudices you yourself hold, then I call hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm all in favor of people being able to discriminate against whom they offer service to... so long as that information is clearly stated in a visible way before entering their premises or using their website. After all, I would hate to accidentally validate their bigotry with my business. Fair's fair.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Personally, I'm all in favor of people being able to discriminate against whom they offer service to... so long as that information is clearly stated in a visible way before entering their premises or using their website. After all, I would hate to accidentally validate their bigotry with my business. Fair's fair.

Clear enough?

th


th


th
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ada Lovelace
Upvote 0

mafwons

Hi guys
Feb 16, 2014
2,740
169
✟11,177.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I have never attended a wedding where the cake was part of the ceremony. At every wedding that I have attended, the cake was severed at a reception that followed the wedding.

It would seem to me that a baker might have reason to object to preparing communion bread that would be used during the wedding ceremony, since that would actually endorse the marriage. However, a baker has no reason to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, because that is not part of the wedding ceremony.

Said baker should be able to refuse anyone on any grounds, period.
 
Upvote 0

mafwons

Hi guys
Feb 16, 2014
2,740
169
✟11,177.00
Faith
Non-Denom
It is all discrimination, and hinges on the rather simple question - do people and businesses have the right to discriminate against customers for reasons that do not affect their ability to conduct business? (For instance, it would not be unreasonable to deny service to someone who has made late payments in the past or who returned rented objects with damage, but a person's skin color or sexual orientation does not affect their ability to pay for goods.)

I think a good argument can be made that, regardless of whether it is destructive to society or not, an individual owning a private business should have the right to deny service to whoever they want. Black or white, male or female, gay or straight, muslim or jew or buddhist or christian or atheist, it doesn't matter who is being discriminated against, all should be allowed.

It's not an argument I agree with, but I think it can be made.

So I will ask those in favor of these 'religious rights' - would it be okay for the baker to refuse service to an interracial couple? How about a christian couple?

If you say yes to both, then by all means argue onward. But, if your endorsement of discrimination extends only to the prejudices you yourself hold, then I call hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm all in favor of people being able to discriminate against whom they offer service to... so long as that information is clearly stated in a visible way before entering their premises or using their website. After all, I would hate to accidentally validate their bigotry with my business. Fair's fair.

The argument is stupid but valid. Discrimination should not be discriminaywd against, the market will punish bad actors to the degree warranted by the discrimination. This running to the courts and whining is a waste of time and resources. Gay bakers should have a heyday with all the customers they can get now, would you not do business with someone who supports your race, lifestyle etc. than someone who does not.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Said baker should be able to refuse anyone on any grounds, period.

So a gas station owner in a remote location should be able to refuse to sell you gas for your automobile if you are Lutheran or if you are female or if you are black or if have red hair, or if you're under 5'6" or if you have blue eyes, even if it means that you will run out of gas in the middle of nowhere?

Why do I have issues with that?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
In wedding preparations in general, is doing a cake for a couple considered an inside, personal, validating participation with a couple?
No. You outsource the job of baking the cake because bakers are better at it. Same with the flowers, dress, invitations, etc. I don't plan to invite those strangers to be part of my wedding, so the idea that they would think their opinion on it should matter is amusing. Just do your job, bakers.
 
Upvote 0

mafwons

Hi guys
Feb 16, 2014
2,740
169
✟11,177.00
Faith
Non-Denom
So a gas station owner in a remote location should be able to refuse to sell you gas for your automobile if you are Lutheran or if you are female or if you are black or if have red hair, or if you're under 5'6" or if you have blue eyes, even if it means that you will run out of gas in the middle of nowhere?

Why do I have issues with that?

Because you don't like it.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
archivist,
all your comparisons break down badly with the SS couple weddings I know of. It was not the "orientation" of the couple but the event. All your examples are determinist. This question is about an event. I don't know any married couples who say the wedding is (now) the single determinative factor of their identity.

But my question here is how much close participation is cake-baking? In the Kennewick, WA, case, I don't see where the couple thought it was very close; it was the dictatorial action of the AG to pursue the cake-baker, though. Someone must have heard the story 2nd-hand and without context and charged after her to target her. And then, as you may know, the punishment turned out so small as to be worthless. There are cases where the whole business has failed, not due to fines so much as the ripple effect of intimidation.

So I propose we start an anti-intimidation movement to answer the way the anti-discrimination people behave.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Because you don't like it.

No, it isn't a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It is because individuals have chosen to engage in a public business. Having done so they need to provide service to the public at large without discriminating against anyone.

If they want to establish their business as a private club then they can limit their customer base.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
all your comparisons break down badly with the SS couple weddings I know of. It was not the "orientation" of the couple but the event.

But, as I clearly said, a wedding cake is not served at a wedding. It is served at a reception, a seperate event that follows a wedding.

All your examples are determinist. This question is about an event. I don't know any married couples who say the wedding is (now) the single determinative factor of their identity.

And, again, the cake is not part of the wedding ceremony.

But my question here is how much close participation is cake-baking? In the Kennewick, WA, case, I don't see where the couple thought it was very close; it was the dictatorial action of the AG to pursue the cake-baker, though. Someone must have heard the story 2nd-hand and without context and charged after her to target her. And then, as you may know, the punishment turned out so small as to be worthless. There are cases where the whole business has failed, not due to fines so much as the ripple effect of intimidation.

You do need to get your facts straight. The case in Kennewick, Washington involved a florist not a baker. The actions of the AG were hardly "dictatorial" in the case--the AG was simply enforcing the law.

So I propose we start an anti-intimidation movement to answer the way the anti-discrimination people behave.

And exactly how would you go about doing this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The question is still the event, not the person. Your examples are all the person. No person is to be put in a fixed category, but sexual orientation does that 24-7.

An attorney general is for presiding over cases that rise up on appeal. There never was a case.

In final analysis, we have a case where the flower shop owner believes the flower decoration service would be part of the event in question. I don't want the state telling her what is and is not part of such an event. That's the issue that should be the debate this week, although it wouldn't matter if the event itself was not an abomination.

Just for illustration, in the highest level of club soccer in Europe (Champions League), the captains are sometimes given bouquets before the matches. The people who give them are honoring their achievement; they validate or participate by the tribute. The flowers are not given by people who hate soccer (for ex. American football fans) or who hate that team (for ex. bitter rivals at the same level). We do not expect the admin of CL (UEFA) to force soccer haters to provide flowers, or force rival teams to provide flowers.

So the woman in Kennewick, understandably, cannot detach providing her artistry to this event. The event is an abomination. The people are not, because people are not in your categories to her.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
btw, the petitions would be the same as usual. Haven't you ever seen people at coffee shops or WalMarts, seeking signatures? Also the POs?

Best if done at the state level probably: "No group shall intimidate those in opposition to it's faith or sexual beliefs." It's redundant really, it's just that the Left does not realize it does it 24-7 through its "trinity." No, no, only conservatives could intimidate.

At UC Davis, the U is telling the Christian students that they have to have non-Christians in their leadership committee. Or disband. Right, and next we'll make sure all fish have bicycles.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
all your comparisons break down badly with the SS couple weddings I know of. It was not the "orientation" of the couple but the event.
The orientation of the couple is the only thing which differentiates a same sex marriage from an opposite sex one. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews and all that.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The question is still the event, not the person. Your examples are all the person. No person is to be put in a fixed category, but sexual orientation does that 24-7.

You will have to clarify your exact meaning here. I'm not sure of your exact meaning.

An attorney general is for presiding over cases that rise up on appeal. There never was a case.

No, the duty of the Washington State Attorney General is enforce the laws of the state of Washington. Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. The Attorney General was doing his job and enforcing the law

In final analysis, we have a case where the flower shop owner believes the flower decoration service would be part of the event in question.

In your earlier post you claimed that the individual was a baker. You seem to be very confused.

I don't want the state telling her what is and is not part of such an event. That's the issue that should be the debate this week, although it wouldn't matter if the event itself was not an abomination.

But under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, if a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.

Just for illustration, in the highest level of club soccer in Europe (Champions League), the captains are sometimes given bouquets before the matches. The people who give them are honoring their achievement; they validate or participate by the tribute. The flowers are not given by people who hate soccer (for ex. American football fans) or who hate that team (for ex. bitter rivals at the same level). We do not expect the admin of CL (UEFA) to force soccer haters to provide flowers, or force rival teams to provide flowers.

Your example has nothing to do with the Washington case. The florist was holding herself out as a public business. The couple was attempting to purchase flowers at the same price that would be given to any opposite-sex couple. No one was trying to force anyone to give away anything.

So the woman in Kennewick, understandably, cannot detach providing her artistry to this event.

She is holding herself out as a public business. She must provide service to the public.

The event is an abomination.

Apparently in her opinion and in your opinion. Others would disagree.

The people are not, because people are not in your categories to her.

What categories? I don't believe that I have tried to set up any categories in this thread. I did provide several examples, but not a list of categories.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Best if done at the state level probably: "No group shall intimidate those in opposition to it's faith or sexual beliefs." It's redundant really, it's just that the Left does not realize it does it 24-7 through its "trinity." No, no, only conservatives could intimidate.

So asking for the same services that are provided to others in intimidation. Right.

At UC Davis, the U is telling the Christian students that they have to have non-Christians in their leadership committee. Or disband. Right, and next we'll make sure all fish have bicycles.[/QUOTE]

You are aware that UC Davis changed its policy. In any event that isn't what we are discussing here.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.