Christian Bakers and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Archivist]

I have not posted anything justifying discrimination to anybody wishing to conduct ordinary commerce anywhere or wishing to attend any public venue or event so long as that person was not there to disrupt or break the law or behave unacceptably. I would strongly speak out if anybody proposed, much less practiced such discrimination whether it was against gay people, Italians, accordion players, or little green men from Mars, etc.

I am arguing for our right, as Christians, as Jews, as Atheists, as Muslims, as Buddhists, as gays, as people of color or just as people, as citizens, as living souls to choose not to personally PARTICIPATE IN AN EVENT that we cannot in good conscience condone. Participate means attending or having to be on the premises or having to produce a specially identifiable product or service for that event. It isn't a matter of attempting to interfere with the event in any way or deny anybody else the right to participate if they want to. It is simply a right to have a personal choice not to be part of it.

I don't know why that is so difficult to see as a completely different thing than discriminating against a person because of who or what he/she is?

Supplying a cake isn't "participating" in an event. The baker isn't attending the event. The baker doesn't have to be on the premises. Lots of people bake cakes--how is this baker's cake "specially identifiable"? This was addressed by Justice Sotomayor during the questioning. She was also worried that a ruling for the baker would not only violate the dignity of same-sex couples, but could also cause real hardships. Most military bases, she noted, are in isolated parts of the United States, many of which are predominantly Conservative Christian. That means, she said, that there might only be one or two bakers to provide cakes for same-sex weddings – and a couple could be out of luck if all the available bakers cite religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to make a cake.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

What if you lived in a town where everybody knew everybody and your 50 year old (male) neighbor came into the Victoria's Secret shop you owned and picked up some sexy items and told you not to say anything but he was buying them for his 18 year old girlfriend because his wife of 30 years had gotten fat. Would the Supreme Court back him up if you refused to sell them to him?

 

[pat34lee]

No, it isn't. We could be talking about adoption, but we are not because we have no desire to have children.

But a blind person is not "dysfunctional."

You seem to think dysfunction is only about something
you want and don't have. It is anything that does not
work as it was created to work. Infertility is dysfunction.
Hammertoe is dysfunction. Male-pattern balding ....

 

[Archivist]

I have told you several times that I am not discussing your intimate relationships.

I don't want to discuss my intimate relationships, nor did I ever try to do so. You were the one who said that those couples who could not have children were "dysfunctional." I stated that I was in such a relationship and that it certainly is not "dysfunctional."

I have no choice no but to put you on ignore, since you cannot even respect that common sense rule that we are here to discuss the issues and not each other.

Since you can't engage in polite conversation, that is fine. I am trying to discuss the issue that you raised--that those couples who could not have children were "dysfunctional." I am not trying to make this personal, but since you raised the situation that I am in I have to rely on my situation to serve as a rebuttal of your false claim.

I will not be goaded into commenting on your personal affairs.

I am not goading you into commenting on anything. I'm asking you to explain your claim.

 

[pat34lee]

Several members of the Supreme Court apparently disagree as do I.

Several members of the Court are more concerned with
shaping society than carrying out the laws of the land.
They have traded the Constitution for their ideology.

 

[Archivist]

You seem to think dysfunction is only about something you want and don't have. It is anything that does not work as it was created to work. Infertility is dysfunction. Hammertoe is dysfunction. Male-pattern balding ....

Dysfunction: Impaired or abnormal functioning. She can't have kids, neither of us wants to have kids. Sounds like everything is functioning normally for us.

 

[Archivist]

Several members of the Court are more concerned with shaping society than carrying out the laws of the land. They have traded the Constitution for their ideology.

No, you are the one who seems to be pushing you ideology over the law.

 

[SilverBear]

So, it was no real comparison as you hoped.

it is real you woudl just rather pretend otherwise

 

[SilverBear]

They reduced their own identity to a sexual attraction. I didn't I'm just saying it's unhealthy.

No YOU reduced homosexuality to just an attraction, and reduce an entire minority in the process. it isn't, just like heterosexuality is not just an attraction. And when you do this, it is truly unhealthy

 

[SilverBear]

Actually, those who make sexual preference a protected
status are the ones reducing them to who they choose as
sex partners to define them.

That would be you and those like you. Decades have been spent promoting hate, prejudice, fear and discrimination and enshrining these things into laws. Why does this minority need legal and governmental protections in the first place?

 

[SilverBear]

What if he did? I wouldn't agree with him about it, but we either have liberty of thought and belief and the right to be who we are and practice our convictions so long as we are not infringing on anybody else's right to the same or we do not. It is WRONG to have protected classes for some people and not everybody in that regard. It isn't a matter of what constitutes the law in that regard. It is a matter of liberty and right and wrong. The law interpreted that somebody has to participate in an event that violates his religious views, his principles, his convictions is a very, very bad law.

A gay person should always be able to be who he or she is in peace, without harassment, and without expectation that he must agree with and/or accommodate an event with which he has a moral, philosophical, or ethical problem with. And so should the gay or heterosexual Christian. It is as simple as that.

Being refused service is harassment.
And you are demanding gays agree with and accommodate discrimination and harassment even thought they have moral, philosophical and ethical problems with that.

 

[SilverBear]

The Kosher foods comparison is a good example. The baker only bakes wedding cakes, not same sex wedding cakes. There is a difference especially since the baker has the freedom to be in a religion that doesn't recognize it as a wedding. If the baker loses this case then churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages or the government will shut them down.

Bull.

Churches aren't a business and the don't sell products or services. No church or minister has to perform any sacrament the he or she does not wish to. This is why churches in the south can still refuse to marry interracial couples

 

[SilverBear]

Here's another thing I don't understand. There are a ton of places in the Bible where it says homosexuality is wrong. Do the "clergy" who perform these ceremonies pretend they aren't there?

you have an odd notion of what a ton is

 

[SilverBear]

From what I have read, Scanadinavian countries have now genetically 'cleansed' themselves of Down's Syndrome people. They probably see this a triumph of eugenic science.
I am not saying that there are not great trials and sacrifices involved in raising kids with Down's Syndrome, but it would surprise me very much if the vast, vast preponderance of parents of such people would not recognizing such 'cleansing' of these people from their lives would not be experienced as a loss greater than they could bear.
Down's Syndrome and unconditional love are synonyms from the little I know about both.

you have read misinformation.

it is true that "Icelandic doctors are required to tell expectant mothers about the availability of a screening test that can indicate (among many other things) the presence of Down syndrome in their fetus.
The Icelandic government does not mandate abortions for mothers whose unborn children test positive for Down syndrome, nor do they mandate that a mother is required to take the test in the first place."

 

[SilverBear]

I will have evidence if the baker loses. I'm not sure how you would NOT describe that as an "indication". Unless something stops a political correct trend it will play out until the end. I see nothing stopping this trend, do you?

fifty years ago the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage. A churches compelled to marry interracial couples? no they are not, they can refuse to marry any couple

 

[SilverBear]

This is more than supplying food. From what I found
out recently, it wasn't even about the cake, which he
was happy to provide. The baker would not personalize
the cake to support homosexuality. No two grooms,
and no well wishes for the guys.

Jack Phillips, the baker in question has stated in court, under oath that he and the couple did not discuss any personalizations of decorations. He refused them service before such things were even brought up.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

you have an odd notion of what a ton is

If I changed it to a lesser weight would you answer the question?

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

What if you lived in a town where everybody knew everybody and your 50 year old (male) neighbor came into the Victoria's Secret shop you owned and picked up some sexy items and told you not to say anything but he was buying them for his 18 year old girlfriend because his wife of 30 years had gotten fat. Would the Supreme Court back him up if you refused to sell them to him?

Why aren't any of the folks who disagree with the baker answering this? The concept is exactly the same. Business owner refuses to sell something on moral grounds.

 

[Foxfyre]

Supplying a cake isn't "participating" in an event. The baker isn't attending the event. The baker doesn't have to be on the premises. Lots of people bake cakes--how is this baker's cake "specially identifiable"? This was addressed by Justice Sotomayor during the questioning. She was also worried that a ruling for the baker would not only violate the dignity of same-sex couples, but could also cause real hardships. Most military bases, she noted, are in isolated parts of the United States, many of which are predominantly Conservative Christian. That means, she said, that there might only be one or two bakers to provide cakes for same-sex weddings – and a couple could be out of luck if all the available bakers cite religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to make a cake.

Supply a cake IS participating in an event when the baker has to design it and most wedding cakes are usually delivered by the baker to the reception hall and assembled with finishing touches there.
Having to provide decorations specifically for an event is participating.

There is no constitutional right to a wedding cake, nor is there any constitutional prohibition to having one. And there sure isn't a constitutional right to force somebody to participate in something he/she feels is wrong. If the baker is out of business, who provides the cake then? Or if a baker isn't willing to take on the job, friends and family of the gay couple can do what I, with the help of others, have done for many friends and family who couldn't afford a professional cake or couldn't find a baker who would accommodate our unusual request--bake and decorate a cake ourselves.

And it still all comes down to the right of any person to choose what practices, events, occasions, etc. it is appropriate for him to be a part of. And that goes for all people, white, black, gay, straight, or name your flavor of choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

Being refused service is harassment.
And you are demanding gays agree with and accommodate discrimination and harassment even thought they have moral, philosophical and ethical problems with that.

It is not at all harassment--please look up the definition of the word. It would be discrimination if it is refusal of a service or product that the business owner normally provides and it does not require the business owner to do something or participate in something that is offensive to him/her or that is out of the ordinary of services normally provided. The baker cheerfully provided whatever products he had for sale to the gay couple for years. No doubt had they ordered a special custom Christmas cake or Easter cake or Birthday cake, they would have gotten it without objection or hassle. It was a gay wedding that the business owner objected to and not the gay people themselves. It was participating in an EVENT that the baker objected to and not the gay people themselves.

And that right of refusal should be honored for all and by all intellectually honest people whether black, white, gay, straight or however they identify themselves.