Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn't Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Twaddle.

Do you check that every bride is a virgin and every groom a gentleman before you accept a wedding invitation? Do you make sure that the money used to pay for the wedding has been honourably earned, and proper tax paid on everything? Do you insist on only sitting next to Christians at the wedding and in the reception?

If not, why not? You might as well be taking part in religious idolatry if you don't ensure the complete purity of the whole event.

Here is what the people are a wedding are for; they are there to witness the wedding. That is it. No moral approval or disapproval. No moral statement of any kind. They are just there so that if they are ever asked, 'Were you at this wedding?' they can say, 'Yes, I was.' They don't even have to declare it was a valid wedding; only that it happened and they saw it.

That is it. Nothing more.
You whole argument is fallacious, from reducing (per usual) the creation of a special cake specifically for the known express purpose of celebrating that which is unlawful to merely being a witness to it (the crime), to equating taking part in something that might be wrong, but would require an investigation to find out to knowingly facilitating the commiting of a crime.

In short, your sophistry has been exposed Again. That is it. Nothing more.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You are just peddling flim-flam and groundless assertions..
Meaning yourself.
Your self-righteous standards of purity are the sort of stuff Christians aren't supposed to deal in. They resonate with the type of religion Jesus condemned.
Really? Meaning the Lord condemned your judging since He charged those with guilt by association, and for fornication, and defined marriage as specifically btwn man and women, and only condemned hypocritical judging. Trying to link taking Biblical stands for morality, as the Lord did, with those of un-selfconscious self-righteous elitism is an old demonic liberal tactic, which they themselves are guilty of.
Sourcing from Conservapedia is hardly evidence of intellectual rigor or integrity. That's like going to Stormfront to learn about the Holocaust
Wrong again, for quoted material is as as good as the references, which are valid here.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
In what way?

The 14th Amendment (which has long been a pebble in the Right's shoe for several reasons) guarantees all people equal protection under the law... it makes no exceptions for moral/immoral behavior...
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Meaning yourself.

Really? Meaning the Lord condemned your judging since He charged those with guilt by association, and for fornication, and defined marriage as specifically btwn man and women, and only condemned hypocritical judging. Trying to link taking Biblical stands for morality, as the Lord did, with those of un-selfconscious self-righteous elitism is an old demonic liberal tactic, which they themselves are guilty of.

Wrong again, for quoted material is as as good as the references, which are valid here.

It is precisely because I take a stand for real biblical morality, the kind that Jesus would approve of, that I object to your unholy war against gays.

Wrong again, for quoted material is as as good as the references, which are valid here.

Decontextualized and misrepresented material is as good as worthless. Conservative hacks so typical of the far right are masters of using empty rhetoric and sophistry as a way to place a fig leaf over the vacuity of their ideas.

BTW, i am unaware of any Christian ethical notion of "guilt by association". Most educated people recognize that is an absurdity. If I know somebody who happens to turn out to be a murderer, I am not guilty of their crime just because I know them.

As usual, you fail to distinguish between acceptance and affirmation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting gay people for who they are. That is not the same as affirming their behavior. Being a Christian doesn't require us to go around being the judge of every perceived sinner. But you somehow take upon yourself the duty to not only judge gay people, but anybody who simply believes it is right and proper to recognize their dignity as being the same as any other human being.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
a) It is - despite recent changes in Australian law - still not legal for me to conduct gay marriages, because my church does not authorise me to. This is not without problems for some people, but it is a situation I can live with. I do not support gay marriage per se, but I support the right for gay people to have their marriage recognised by a secular state. (That is, I don't believe that my beliefs should be imposed on others).

b) The couple wanted a cake for a party to take place sometime after their wedding. That's not illegal, and I'm having difficulty deciding that even God is against parties for sinners. So, no, the baker would not be an accessory, and claiming a conscience issue is - imv - displaced.



There's nothing unlawful about eating cake, which is the purpose of buying a cake. It's not intrinsically part of the wedding, especially when it's supplied for a party some time later.

Strictly speaking Anglican priests do not conduct weddings.

Uniquely among all the sacraments, marriage is an act which is carried out not by the priest, not by the witnesses, not by the State and not even by God. Marriage is carried out by the happy couple; they make vows to one another and those vows constitute the marriage. The sacrament is effected by the vows they make.

The priest's part is that of MC; to proclaim that the wedding has happened, and to pronounce God's blessing over the vows, and over the relationship. The rest of the congregation, as already stated, are there to witness what happens.

No priest needs to have any qualms about being at a wedding, or proclaiming God's blessing over the couple, assuming that they are legally qualified to marry; of age, of sound enough mind, sober enough etc. And all of those details would become clear before the service, when they fill in the relevant forms.

When a couple marries in a civil ceremony and comes to church for a blessing they are in effect doing exactly the same as a couple marrying in church; they marry one another, the church blesses the union.

Given all of this, quite why the church still has problems marrying gay people is beyond me. It doesn't marry anyone.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
I see nothing wrong with celebrating a divorce with cake especially if one is finally free from being tortured from physical. mental and emotional abuse. sure I agree that god hates divorce, yet jesus gives a few reasons for it to be allowed-right paidiski?

i can see this opening up a whole can of worms

ppl can say its against their religion bc they belong to the cult of gym, and therefore cannot serve fat people.

where will this end?

God does not hate divorce. What he deplores is relationships which blaspheme against the sacrament of marriage.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: teresa
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Has this happened? I don't see any Salafist gas station owners on the SCOTUS docket....
What I said, to which you replied, was:

Would be interesting if a small town Salafist gas station owner refused to serve women drivers on religious grounds.
 
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

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
When a couple marries in a civil ceremony and comes to church for a blessing they are in effect doing exactly the same as a couple marrying in church; they marry one another, the church blesses the union.

Given all of this, quite why the church still has problems marrying gay people is beyond me. It doesn't marry anyone.

That's why my church doesn't consider marriage a sacrament. It's a civil institution that the Church chooses to bless. There's no special magic happening in a church at a wedding, and certainly none in a wedding cake. If there's any idolatry happening here, it's among the folks that insist that a wedding cake has some kind of inherent religious significance.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,557
Colorado
✟427,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...So can you explain (in a way that makes sense) why in your opinion why it's OK to post a sign advertising a business choice to not serve women but you blanch at the idea of a business posting a sign advertising its choice to not serve blacks?
Hmm. Did I say it was ok?
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The 14th Amendment (which has long been a pebble in the Right's shoe for several reasons) guarantees all people equal protection under the law... it makes no exceptions for moral/immoral behavior...
Which is not unlimited, and depends upon interpretation with other rights being considered, otherwise any immoral persons (felons) can vote, the boy scouts must allow homosexual leaders, and organizations must allow any type of group in its events, artists must create whatever is asked for them, for whatever purpose...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I have a question for you.
Should a painter or sculptor that creates art depicting a man and woman in an intimate embrace be forced to create art depicting same sex couples in an intimate embrace?

Does he offer art depicting same sex couples in an intimate embrace to all customer except certain minorities? If not, then this example has nothing to do with the question at hand.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Pretty sure it was because despite the claims of cakes sending obvious, clear, unmistakable messages about the beliefs of the baker, they somehow missed the message that one of the cakes in your link is for a gay wedding. Weird how this alleged straightforward endorsement of immorality by a baker escaped someone who was specifically telling us how important it was. Almost as if the reality of the situation doesn't line up with the propaganda coming from people who want to give businesses a blank check to refuse service to certain groups.
 
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

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which is not unlimited, and depends upon interpretation with other rights being considered, otherwise any immoral persons (felons) can vote, the boy scouts must allow homosexual leaders, and organizations must allow any type of group in its events, artists must create whatever is asked for them, for whatever purpose...

When it comes to public accommodating businesses, religious rights have limits, because you are dealing with the public and in fact, you invite them in your door.

When it comes to private interactions; churches, private clubs, private schools, in your home, you can discriminate until your heart is content.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It is precisely because I take a stand for real biblical morality, the kind that Jesus would approve of, that I object to your unholy war against gays.
Decontextualized and misrepresented material is as good as worthless. Conservative hacks so typical of the far right are masters of using empty rhetoric and sophistry as a way to place a fig leaf over the vacuity of their ideas..
Typical of liberalism ,you example the very thing you charge. You flail away at self-righteous judging, while you judge as one superior, and make some vague references to Christ as conddeming what you condemn, which can only be some decontextualized and misrepresented material.
BTW, i am unaware of any Christian ethical notion of "guilt by association". Most educated people recognize that is an absurdity. If I know somebody who happens to turn out to be a murderer, I am not guilty of their crime just because I know them.
Rather, Most educated people recognize that in the context we are dealing with here, of being an accomplice to a crime, association with it, is a valid legal concept, as was shown.

Again, to knowingly contract and provide something which is to be specifically expressly used for the celebration of something unlawful makes one an accomplice to it.
As usual, you fail to distinguish between acceptance and affirmation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting gay people for who they are. That is not the same as affirming their behavior.
This issue here is the latter, as explained.
Being a Christian doesn't require us to go around being the judge of every perceived sinner. But you somehow take upon yourself the duty to not only judge gay people, but anybody who simply believes it is right and proper to recognize their dignity as being the same as any other human being.
Wrong again. Judging what a person does, by refusing to be associated with it due to sincere convictions and conscience, is Biblical and does not mean this is that of self-righteous hypocritical judging. You may feel demeaned because I will not be part of your homosexual celebration, and judge me for it, but it does not mean you are right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I wonder if that means: You dont have to fuel up a wedding car; you dont have to supply electricity to the wedding venue; you dont have to sell the wedding dress; as a post office you can refuse to post or deliver wedding invitations; can turn off the water to the wedding venue; refuse to sell the flowers etc etc - I guess you can go elsewhere in a lot of cases.

Don't have to rent apartments to non-Christians because one would be endorsing a non-Christian lifestyle. Don't sell food to a married gay couple for the same reason. Refuse to treat the child of a gay couple because of their "lifestyle choices".

Guess which of these have actually happened so far?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: FireDragon76
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

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Not when the couple say it is specifically for the celebration of their (unlawful) "marriage"

The only unlawful marriage I'm aware of in this context was the dog wedding one of the bakers said he'd provide a cake for. Doesn't really help the excuse that he was worried about endorsing an illegal union or whatever the story is this week, but that seems pretty typical for these sorts of cases.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.