Christian Bakers and Gay Wedding Cakes

Eloy Craft said:

You just agreed it's a sacrament and added that it is an institution of the state. To make a statement that reads like a denial but is not. Why do you defend peoples right to make a Christian create a perverted imitation of a sign of Christ's sanctifying grace?

Click to expand...

Except that there is no evidence that this couple wanted "to make a Christian create a perverted imitation of a sign of Christ's sanctifying grace?"

Eloy Craft said:

Well, if a same sex couple has a right to make the baker create for them, whether or not it imaged the couple on the cake, he would have to if they wanted. So what this couple would have decided isn't relavent.

Click to expand...

But the couple here didn't decide anything because the baker never gave them that opportunity.

Eloy Craft said:

You just agreed it's a sacrament and added that it is an institution of the state. To make a statement that reads like a denial but is not. Why do you defend peoples right to make a Christian create a perverted imitation of a sign of Christ's sanctifying grace?

Click to expand...

Marriage is not a sacrament that God has promised for our justification, and it is only sacramental through faith and obedience, and not the institution itself. Two unbelievers who are married are not in any way made holy through participation in marriage.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose wedding cakes are sacraments: why would you object to baking cakes for gay people, and not unbelievers, if a wedding cake is somehow a sacramental sign? Isn't that blessing two straight people in their unchristian lifestyle? Suppose the two straight people are swingers, or they are engaged in sex magic, isn't that blessing something that God condemns? And yet, it's not our place to judge peoples private lives like that. In fact, it's deeply un-Christian to do so.

FireDragon76 said:

Marriage is not a sacrament that God has promised for our justification, and it is only sacramental through faith and obedience, and not the institution itself. Two unbelievers who are married are not in any way made holy through participation in marriage.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose wedding cakes are sacraments: why would you object to baking cakes for gay people, and not unbelievers, if a wedding cake is somehow a sacramental sign? Isn't that blessing two straight people in their unchristian lifestyle? Suppose the two straight people are swingers, or they are engaged in sex magic, isn't that blessing something that God condemns? And yet, it's not our place to judge peoples private lives like that. In fact, it's deeply un-Christian to do so.

Click to expand...

Two men or two women aren't able to be a visible sign of marriage. A man enters a state of matrimony in marriage. Only a woman can provide that because only a woman is maternal. Insisting that same sex couples are more than civil unions is a threat to the meaning of the reality of marriage. It is a bond that is essential to human life. Same sex unions treated as the same thing does damage to what it really is. The matrimonial bond is real and essential to human life and what it means is being pushed into the recesses of the unconscious. I don't want to help it slip away. To add: same sex cvouples are not able to enter into the Marital bond. So it is celebrating something untrue.

Archivist said:

But the couple here didn't decide anything because the baker never gave them that opportunity.

Click to expand...

if they win they can make the baker create a cake that would violate his conscience. What they could have decided isn't relevant

Eloy Craft said:

if they win they can make the baker create a cake that would violate his conscience. What they could have decided isn't relevant

Click to expand...

Fist, it is relevant. If the couple wants nothing more than flowers on their cake, how would creating a cake with flowers violate the bakers conscience?

So if a Christian man is marrying a Jewish woman and they want a cross and a star of David on the cake, the baker should be able to refuse them if he doesn't believe in inter-religious marriage. What if it is a white man marring a black woman and they want something symbolizing their races on the cake but the baker doesn't agree with interracial marriage. How far do we take this? Baker doesn't like foreigners, but this is a Mexican national marrying a US citizen? Baker doesn't like Italians, but this is an Italian-American man marrying a German-American woman?

Archivist said:

Fist, it is relevant. If the couple wants nothing more than flowers on their cake, how would creating a cake with flowers violate the bakers conscience?

Click to expand...

A law that would force the baker to create images that violate his conscience is the issue. Not what they may pick this time. It's what they can any time. Which is what is relevant. That is what the court is deciding.

Archivist said:

So if a Christian man is marrying a Jewish woman and they want a cross and a star of David on the cake, the baker should be able to refuse them if he doesn't believe in inter-religious marriage. What if it is a white man marring a black woman and they want something symbolizing their races on the cake but the baker doesn't agree with interracial marriage. How far do we take this? Baker doesn't like foreigners, but this is a Mexican national marrying a US citizen? Baker doesn't like Italians, but this is an Italian-American man marrying a German-American woman?

Click to expand...

None of those examples represent a protected group that has named themselves a behavior considered immoral by almost everyone untill recently. Protection was given to groups who were discriminated against because of things that were not ever universally immoral. Rights given to a group that is identified as an immoral behavior is new without precedent. That a an immoral sexual behavior is protected as well as the people named after it has never happened before. A behavior the was universally considered immoral...everyone considered it wrong except those doing it. So when comparisons with past groups are brought up they aren't fair examples

SolomonVII said:

Do you believe that a baker ought to be financially ruined by the Law for having a different point of view on this than you?

Do you think that the baker is evil for believing that SSM is wrong, and that he does not want to take part in it in any way that goes against his conscience?

Click to expand...

In Catholicism their are sins of commission and sins of omission. Letting the activists do the dirty work and financially ruin the baker, while remaining silent, is one of those sins of omission.

Silence is not a defense.

Eloy Craft said:

Exactly. Both are a matter of conscience. Both prevent the Christian from participating in the economy. Abortion just flips it around a bit. A christian should understand how a cake with a distorted image of a sacramental sign on top might offend.

Click to expand...

Um...exactly what would that look like?

Eloy Craft said:

Two men or two women aren't able to be a visible sign of marriage. A man enters a state of matrimony in marriage. Only a woman can provide that because only a woman is maternal. Insisting that same sex couples are more than civil unions is a threat to the meaning of the reality of marriage. It is a bond that is essential to human life. Same sex unions treated as the same thing does damage to what it really is. The matrimonial bond is real and essential to human life and what it means is being pushed into the recesses of the unconscious. I don't want to help it slip away. To add: same sex cvouples are not able to enter into the Marital bond. So it is celebrating something untrue.

Click to expand...

can you give us a few concrete, real world examples of the damage you are talking about?

Eloy Craft said:

A law that would force the baker to create images that violate his conscience is the issue. Not what they may pick this time. It's what they can any time. Which is what is relevant. That is what the court is deciding.

None of those examples represent a protected group that has named themselves a behavior considered immoral by almost everyone untill recently. Protection was given to groups who were discriminated against because of things that were not ever universally immoral. Rights given to a group that is identified as an immoral behavior is new without precedent. That a an immoral sexual behavior is protected as well as the people named after it has never happened before. A behavior the was universally considered immoral...everyone considered it wrong except those doing it. So when comparisons with past groups are brought up they aren't fair examples

Click to expand...

you demonstrate clearly that all your talk violations of consciousness are just so much garbage.

Eloy Craft said:

The matrimonial bond is real and essential to human life and what it means is being pushed into the recesses of the unconscious. I don't want to help it slip away. To add: same sex cvouples are not able to enter into the Marital bond. So it is celebrating something untrue.

Click to expand...

The legal union of two gay people does no violence to what is essential to human life, when we consider the plight of modern gay people phenomenologically, in their actual lived experience. Two gay people being married do not necessarily harm two straight people who are married . It is only in some abstract sense divorced from concrete persons in their lived experience. Which means its sophistry in the end to argue about such "harm". The only harm is to personal animus, to the puritanical notion that somebody, somewhere, is not "living the way I do." But that's terribly egotistical thinking. It's not the government's job to validate a particular way of life.

FireDragon76 said:

The legal union of two gay people does no violence to what is essential to human life, when we consider the plight of modern gay people phenomenologically, in their actual lived experience. Two gay people being married do not necessarily harm two straight people who are married . It is only in some abstract sense divorced from concrete persons in their lived experience. Which means its sophistry in the end to argue about such "harm". The only harm is to personal animus.

Click to expand...

The harm is to the meaning of marriage. The matrimonial bond. That has already faded to the point that understanding what it is and how it works has become counter intuitive.

The harm is to the meaning of marriage. The matrimonial bond. That has already faded to the point that understanding what it is and how it works has become counter intuitive. Unfortunately people have become to hardened for it to naturally occur very often

SilverBear said:

you demonstrate clearly that all your talk violations of consciousness are just so much garbage.

Click to expand...

it's easy to say something is garbage without an explanation. Just an empty comment otherwise

Eloy Craft said:

The harm is to the meaning of marriage. The matrimonial bond. That has already faded to the point that understanding what it is and how it works has become counter intuitive.

Click to expand...

Actually Brittany Spears' 55-hour marriage back in 2004 and other marriages that last less than one or two years have been what has damaged the matrimonial bond, not a long-term loving relationship between two men or two women.

Eloy Craft said:

A law that would force the baker to create images that violate his conscience is the issue. Not what they may pick this time. It's what they can any time. Which is what is relevant. That is what the court is deciding.

Click to expand...

But your earlier statement was "Why do you defend peoples right to make a Christian create a perverted imitation of a sign of Christ's sanctifying grace?" Again, no one here tried to force a Christian to create a perverted imitation of a sign of Christ's sanctifying grace. Now you are saying, well they might have asked for that. But they didn't. In fact, they weren't given the chance to order anything.

None of those examples represent a protected group that has named themselves a behavior considered immoral by almost everyone untill recently. Protection was given to groups who were discriminated against because of things that were not ever universally immoral. Rights given to a group that is identified as an immoral behavior is new without precedent. That a an immoral sexual behavior is protected as well as the people named after it has never happened before. A behavior the was universally considered immoral...everyone considered it wrong except those doing it. So when comparisons with past groups are brought up they aren't fair examples

Click to expand...

There are still churches in the south that will not marry an interracial couple becaue such a marriage is viewed as immoral. As a church they can do that. But I presume that there are members of such churches who believe interracial marrage to be immoral who would make the same argument as this baker--that they shouldn't be required to provide a cake, take photos, make food, play music for what they see as an immoral interracial marriage.

SilverBear said:

can you give us a few concrete, real world examples of the damage you are talking about?

Click to expand...

The misunderstanding of what defines marriage. The mantra for years , 'we love each other' .
Just that damages marriage because it removes what marriage is from the conversation. All relationships are supposed to be cemented with love, Marriage becomes unrecognizeable with that prevailing term. Same sex marriage as a right used the word love as an appeal to political correctness.
The current error is thinking that a 'quantity' of love is required for a marriage. Does anyone actually know how love in a marriage differs from love between friends? or siblings? Same sex marriage isn't the reason marriage is a broken institution and no longer stabilizing family life and society as a whole. Do SSA people know that the Marital bond is a unique reality that is essential for fulfiled human life?


The harm that is caused by not distinguishing same sex unions from marriage is that it creates a social environment that enable it's meaning to continue slipping into the unconscious Dignifying an imitation of the matrimonial bond degrades it's true meaning.


Same sex unions enjoy the bond common to friends The bond between them, because the roles proper to marriage are adopted as a style of life the experience imposes the psychology of married life and the bond of friendship forms into a quasi marital bond. This is something that can happen between any two people who live a life as spouses. It's common between mother and son in single parent families. When the parent becomes codependent. Codependency is an experience generally common to married life but with the breakdown of families it is experienced within other bonds. Same sex marriage is a quasi marital bond that if not identified as such will not be distinguishable from the authentic bond of marriage.

Because the marital bond is a forgotten reality as it is, same sex unions if identified as marriage can sentence the authentic bond of marriage to a slow descent into dark recesses of the unconscious.

Isn't that the end purpose? To end the discrimination that denies the right to make the baker obey the law of the land and make that cake that he doesn't not want to make?

Archivist said:

There are still churches in the south that will not marry an interracial couple becaue such a marriage is viewed as immoral. As a church they can do that. But I presume that there are members of such churches who believe interracial marrage to be immoral who would make the same argument as this baker--that they shouldn't be required to provide a cake, take photos, make food, play music for what they see as an immoral interracial marriage.

Click to expand...

color isn't a behavior once considered immoral by a vast majority. You won't find a precedent protected group. This protected group is the first that identifies themselves as an immoral behavior. A behavior considered immoral by everyone but those who do it. No precedent example exists.

Archivist said:

Actually Brittany Spears' 55-hour marriage back in 2004 and other marriages that last less than one or two years have been what has damaged the matrimonial bond, not a long-term loving relationship between two men or two women.

Click to expand...

Brittany's marriage is a result of ignorance. Ignorance of the truth about marriage is damaging. The distorted definition that permeated the west for years defining marriage in terms with a self serving purpose rather than truth. I doubt you understand the bond of marriage. You wouldn't make that assertion if you knew. That's the disturbing thing. So many supporters of same sex marriage are willing to change something as important to the social structure as this bond yet know so little about it. I've come to understand, when a person knows the depth of the marital bond they want it preserved. If same sex folks want to live as spouses that's not a problem. But at least recognize the bond that naturally unites marriage. The marriage bond is human in nature