A Discussion of Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights

[Archivist]

Again no matter how it is stated or justified there is a huge difference between "you cannot come in here" or "we do not serve your kind" with "I don't want to do what you want me to do".

Except that in this case Phillips refused to serve a wedding cake to "their kind," so yes it us the same.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You missed my point. Courtney and Dale are both names that either a man or woman can use, like Leslie. So an hypothetical phone order would not be lying. However, we haven't determined if the said couple are Christian, and we do not know if they know of the baker's convictions.

You have been talking about sin SIN SIN since you came across this thread. A person's sexual behavior can be sinful, but that goes to any sex act, be it a man forcing himself on his wife when she isn't in the mood to a woman raping a 17 year old and then discarding him on the side of the road (although the kid might think he got lucky, for a while).

Even a wife saying "Frank, I've got a headache." is sinful if she doesn't have a headache.

What I have been talking about (and you don't seem to perceive) is rights. If it is within a person's right to buy a frilly dress, it doesn't matter who is going to wear it. Maybe he is, doing a drag number at a gay bar. Maybe he is buying it for his wife. You don't know. Nor can you discriminate because the dress might be used to "celebrate" a sinful act.

Even though gay marriage was (at the time) illegal in Colorado, it was legal in Massachusetts, and the whole "full faith and credit" clause in the US Constitution. At the point where Mullins and Craig entered the bakery, that law was in effect. There seems to be no public record that Craig or Mullins knew that the baker had a no SS wedding cakes policy. The policy was NOT posted.

Frankly, if I walked into a bakery that had a notice posted in the wall saying, "Baked Goods will not be served to monastics." I would walk out without saying a word. I might call a lawyer, or a TV journalist and tell him/her about it, but I would have nothing to do with that bakery from then on. And I would call all of the monastics and religious hermits in town and tell them about it. You haven't seen how impressive an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic monk can be in full habit. Ten or fifteen of them, standing on the public sidewalk outside his establishment, praying can be very impressive and intimidating.

Again the question is whether the law can compel someone to make something that violates their good conscience. Phillips did not lynch anyone. He did not firebomb a gay club. He did not even protest a SS union. He did not have "no LGBT allowed" signs on his business. He did not want to make a cake, claims he (not the couple) would offend God in doing so and sees it as wrong to force him to offend God.

The fact many in this thread do not agree Phillips has a good conscience and would do well to change it supports the notion that this issue, like many similar cases, is not about getting "equal" service. It is about changing people's conscience to make it acceptable to everyone. The LGBT couples do not just want a cake from guys like this, they want the baker to be happy with making that cake. Well, like one poster suggested, that baker is not happy doing it, so put on your big boy/girl pants and go to another one. Social embarrassment - please - who posted the first report of the exchange on the internet???

It is also a two edge sword. If a baker, I would not want to do Westboro Baptist wedding cakes for many reasons, but principally it would offend my conscience to do so - and that nothing to do with the couple making the request. Would I get to make that discrimination with my customers?

It would seem if Phillips cannot object to making something which offends his conscience because of discrimination statutes, then are we not saying we can similarly force anyone to make something they find offensive? Or does the charge of discrimination only apply if a particular vocal majority agrees it is offensive?

The moral question of Phillips conviction and the "harm" he did the couple in an exchange that was maybe 30 seconds long is being equivocated here with supposed "good" consciences that allegedly drove the people murdering minorities (and also to Nazis by civic leaders -did someone do that here too???). Is that really where we are as a society on such an objection?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Except that in this case Phillips refused to serve a wedding cake to "their kind," so yes it us the same.

So if everything my restaurant serves has either pork in it or cooked with pork fat, then a Jewish or Muslim customer should be able to force me to make a Hala or Kosher alternative or risk civil suit?
Or conversely and more closely related to this case, a Jewish or Muslim business man's business refuses to give me what I want because making it would not only offend his conscience but doing so in his view would offend God.

 

[Archivist]

So if everything my restaurant serves has either pork in it or cooked with pork fat, then a Jewish or Muslim customer should be able to force me to make a Hala or Kosher alternative or risk civil suit?

No, if all you make are foods containing pork then you don't have to change your menu. That isn't discrimination. But if you make beef hamburgers but refuse to sell one to a Muslim because of his religion, that is discrimination. Likewise if you make wedding cakes but refuse to make one for a same-sex couple in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class then that is discrimination.

Or conversely and more closely related to this case, a Jewish or Muslim business man's business refuses to give me what I want because making it would not only offend his conscience but doing so in his view would offend God.

Such a businessman can't be forced to make something he doesn't ordinarily make just for you. It isn't discrimination to refuse to fix a steak if your business is baking cakes. But if that person operates a steakhouse and you order a steak and you are willing and able to pay the normal price then yes he needs to provide it to you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

This is conjecture and hearsay. Let's keep to the facts. Did they know that Phillips had such a policy? Yes or no?

If I knew I would not be using terms or phrases like suspect, or I bet, or I think or probably and I would post a link to support it.

However, the brevity of the exchange, the level of "harm" being alleged from a 30 second exchange, the fact he offered something to them and they did not bother to stay and find out what that might be, a reasonable assumption that Phillips stance would be rather common knowledge in the local LGBT community and also a topic in their social media blogs, that this couple would very likely have friends or friends of friends posting about Phillips position prior to their exchange, the facebook post made after the event and the ACLU response...etc.; do all seem to suggest it was bit contrived to me. It is not like people have not been targeted before, so it would not surprise me if they went there knowing they could not get a wedding cake. But it really does not matter if they did as far as being able to make the claim that they have made -they have the right regardless of what all their intentions were. If they did, targeting could still be seen as a form of civil protest against what they saw as a violation of rights, and Phillips stance would be as well.

I thought I had actually read they knew beforehand that he had refused people - that they had admitted as much in news reports. But after being challenged here on my posted suspicion, I did go back to search a little and could find no statements confirming that they knew about Phillips before hand - only that others in the local community had reached out to them on social media after they posted their experience with similar stories about that cake shop. And again, given it was known in the community and the way social media works - it seems at least a little odd to me to suggest they had no idea about Phillips position before hand. Maybe they were new to the area.

Should be no surprise in this thread that I am biased for Phillips being able to stand on his conviction. Am certainly not immune in reading articles to "see" things supporting whatever my bias is and that upon second reading those things either were not actually there at all or simply misread. Am sure no one here opposed to my position has ever done that.

 

[Paidiske]

The fact many in this thread do not agree Phillips has a good conscience and would do well to change it supports the notion that this issue, like many similar cases, is not about getting "equal" service. It is about changing people's conscience to make it acceptable to everyone.

Not at all my position.

I'm very used to helping people work through their issues of conscience. I have absolutely no such idea in my head that we should change our consciences to be "acceptable to everyone." That is not a Christian position. Our consciences need to be acceptable to God, and that will bring us into conflict with others, and I take that very seriously.

However, what I see in this situation is at the very least some inconsistency in thinking through the issues, and some scruples which I think are founded on no necessary Christian moral principle. And so I'm questioning that as the basis for claiming a religious reason for refusing to serve all of his customers equally (and, by extension, a religious reason for lots of other people to behave similarly).

Am sure no one here opposed to my position has ever done that.

Again, please quit with the little flamey comments. They add nothing to your argument and are not a courteous way to treat others discussing this with you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No, if all you make are foods containing pork then you don't have to change your menu. That isn't discrimination. But if you make beef hamburgers but refuse to sell one to a Muslim because of his religion, that is discrimination. Likewise if you make wedding cakes but refuse to make one for a same-sex couple in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class then that is discrimination.



Such a businessman can't be forced to make something he doesn't ordinarily make just for you. It isn't discrimination to refuse to fix a steak if your business is baking cakes. But if that person operates a steakhouse and you order a steak and you are willing and able to pay the normal price then yes he needs to provide it to you.

A Kosher or Hala only deli is making a discrimination on what they will serve based on their convictions and supported by religious freedoms - as opposed to a deli that offers both. If this is doubted to be discrimination make it a subsidized charity kitchen near an Obama Muslim sanctuary and see how long they could run Kosher only without a discrimination lawsuit. These are discrimination we allow without second thought and that are protected by religious freedom/rights.

We have a CO law the couple is claiming protects their rights to be able to force someone to make a cake he does not want to make. We have laws protecting the rights of people based on their religious convictions. The courts decide when such rights are said to clash. In this case it is still on appeal and Phillips sells no wedding cakes in the mean time.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Again, did they specify a gay pride cake? No, they left.

They are reported saying in an interview that a rainbow pride cake (the inside) like they one they got elsewhere was something they went to Phillips store to get. The only reason that detail of what exactly they wanted did not come out is they left the store after taking less than 30 seconds to discuss the matter with Phillips. Both sides are quoted saying it was a very brief encounter and they left immediately upon him telling them he does not do SS wedding cakes.

 

[Archivist]

A Kosher or Hala only deli is making a discrimination on what they will serve based on their convictions and supported by religious freedoms - as opposed to a deli that offers both. If this is doubted to be discrimination make it a subsidized charity kitchen near an Obama Muslim sanctuary and see how long they could run Kosher only without a discrimination lawsuit. These are discrimination we allow without second thought and that are protected by religious freedom/rights.

No, a kosher deli will sell anything on their menu to any paying customer. That is not discrimination. Refusing to sell certain items on your menu to certain customers because if your religious beliefs is discrimination.

We have a CO law the couple is claiming protects their rights to be able to force someone to make a cake he does not want to make. We have laws protecting the rights of people based on their religious convictions. The courts decide when such rights are said to clash. In this case it is still on appeal and Phillips sells no wedding cakes in the mean time.

If Phillips is not selling cakes now that is his decision.

 

[Archivist]

They are reported saying in an interview that a rainbow pride cake (the inside) like they one they got elsewhere was something they went to Phillips store to get. The only reason that detail of what exactly they wanted did not come out is they left the store after taking less than 30 seconds to discuss the matter with Phillips. Both sides are quoted saying it was a very brief encounter and they left immediately upon him telling them he does not do SS wedding cakes.

Why would they stick around and talk after he told them that he would not make a cake for them.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not at all my position.

I'm very used to helping people work through their issues of conscience. I have absolutely no such idea in my head that we should change our consciences to be "acceptable to everyone." That is not a Christian position. Our consciences need to be acceptable to God, and that will bring us into conflict with others, and I take that very seriously.

However, what I see in this situation is at the very least some inconsistency in thinking through the issues, and some scruples which I think are founded on no necessary Christian moral principle. And so I'm questioning that as the basis for claiming a religious reason for refusing to serve all of his customers equally (and, by extension, a religious reason for lots of other people to behave similarly).



Again, please quit with the little flamey comments. They add nothing to your argument and are not a courteous way to treat others discussing this with you.

I guess the whole principle thing would depend first on whether one felt homosexual acts are a sin. Also for many Christians whether a marriage is meant to be between a man and woman, which would mean a SS marriage is in itself an insult to God. Once we answer either of those in the affirmative then I would suggest there is a necessary Christian moral principle that could lead one to ask what level of support for a celebration of same sex couples are one's personal convictions going to allow and what is the impact of that decision on one's soul and potential impact on other souls witnessing that decision.

These are separate questions and no two Christians are going to answer the same way in every case. It leads some to totally shun even family and former friends. I think that is wrong, but am not sure how I can validly question what their scruples are based on for following that particular conviction simply because I disagree with them for doing that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Why would they stick around and talk after he told them that he would not make a cake for them.

I read he told them he would not make a SS wedding cake and that is the only thing the plaintiffs can assert in regards to what he would or would not do for them because they did not stick around to ask him when he offered something in the same breath to find out whatever that something might include. Their argument is not that he would not bake for them or any SS couple. The argument is that he makes wedding cakes and would not make one for them because they are a SS couple.

 

[Archivist]

I read he told them he would not make a SS wedding cake and that is the only thing the plaintiffs can assert in regards to what he would or would not do for them because they did not stick around to ask him when he offered something in the same breath to find out whatever that something might include. Their argument is not that he would not bake for them or any SS couple. The argument is that he makes wedding cakes and would not make one for them because they are a SS couple.

The couple wanted a wedding cake. Apparently they did not want other baked goods. They didn't want cupcakes, cookies, bread or rolls. Why would they want to remain and talk with Phillips when he was refusing to make a wedding cake--the one thing they wanted--for them?

 

[Paidiske]

I guess the whole principle thing would depend first on whether one felt homosexual acts are a sin. Also for many Christians whether a marriage is meant to be between a man and woman, which would mean a SS marriage is in itself an insult to God. Once we answer either of those in the affirmative then I would suggest there is a necessary Christian moral principle that could lead one to ask what level of support for a celebration of same sex couples are one's personal convictions going to allow and what is the impact of that decision on one's soul and potential impact on other souls witnessing that decision.

These are separate questions and no two Christians are going to answer the same way in every case. It leads some to totally shun even family and former friends. I think that is wrong, but am not sure how I can validly question what their scruples are based on for following that particular conviction simply because I disagree with them for doing that.

There's a further question, though. Even if you agree that homosexual acts are a sin, and that same-sex marriage is a blasphemy, and that one should not support either, there is the question of whether selling a non-same-sex specific wedding cake to a gay couple amounts to support or celebration.

My position - and the law's - is that it does not. And that, I think, is the disconnect in this whole conversation.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The couple wanted a wedding cake. Apparently they did not want other baked goods. They didn't want cupcakes, cookies, bread or rolls. Why would they want to remain and talk with Phillips when he was refusing to make a wedding cake--the one thing they wanted--for them?

The question originally presented assumes Phillips would not bake a cake for them - which is a hypothetical. From the facts of the case, I don't know that Phillips would not bake "a cake" for them which is why I felt compelled to correct the assumption implicit in the question. I only know that he does not make SS wedding cakes.

 

[ken777]

Whether it is a baker, or florist, or photographer, or musician, or whatever, the traditional Biblical Christian will see ssm as a mockery, insult and blasphemy against the Word of God which teaches that marriage between a man and a woman represents one of the most sacred fundamentals of his/her faith: the union of Christ and the Church.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking homosexuals.

I continue to be amazed at the support some religious people demonstrate for punishing those who choose not to participate in such activities.

While some dispute the word "participate" there are many (including the openly gay Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson) who accept that small businesses providing specially prepared goods and/or on site services should be exempted to maintain religious freedom. As he says: "Some people wrongly argue that religious freedom ends at the temple door".

Tim Wilson, The Australian, August 8, 2015:
"The most debatable proposal is whether an owner of a small business ordinarily engaged in providing wedding goods and services should be able to seek an exemption from anti-discrimination laws for marriage inconsistent with their genuinely held faith or conscience. Exemptions along these lines already exist. The Victorian Equal Opportunity Act includes options for an exemption that is used by women-only gyms to exclude men, or gay and lesbian bars and venues to selectively decide patronage.

Exemptions wouldn’t be revolutionary but would have to be very narrow. They could apply only to wedding-specific services for businesses ordinarily engaged in providing such services".

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I continue to be amazed at the support some religious people demonstrate for punishing those who choose not to participate in such activities.

Sadly as time goes on it will happen more and more. As the bible says many will stand before God and He will say "Go away I do not know you!". Not that if you bake a cake for a LGBT couple your going to hell or anything. But none the less in america as the culture change,s christians seem to change too. Heck I can admit to it myself.

Growing up my parents never watched Ellen because she was gay. They told me to never watch her either. And yet now on RARE occasions when theres nothing really on we may flip to her show sometimes. We don't agree with her lifestyle, but we have changed a bit. Which is why I stopped even "rarley" watching her. Because I myself don't want to give into peer pressure. There are even youtubers I won't watch because of their lifestyle. And they have some good content but sadly I will not watch them because of that lifestyle.

At the end of the day we just have to accept that christians will have varying views on this. Because the bible says we can tr to change people to what is right, but ultimately we have to stop trying because it is between them and God if they want to change or not. And yes I even apply that to myself since there are things I could probably change but don't. Such as watching R rated movies.

 

[ken777]

Sadly as time goes on it will happen more and more. As the bible says many will stand before God and He will say "Go away I do not know you!". Not that if you bake a cake for a LGBT couple your going to hell or anything. But none the less in america as the culture change,s christians seem to change too. Heck I can admit to it myself.

Growing up my parents never watched Ellen because she was gay. They told me to never watch her either. And yet now on RARE occasions when theres nothing really on we may flip to her show sometimes. We don't agree with her lifestyle, but we have changed a bit. Which is why I stopped even "rarley" watching her. Because I myself don't want to give into peer pressure. There are even youtubers I won't watch because of their lifestyle. And they have some good content but sadly I will not watch them because of that lifestyle.

At the end of the day we just have to accept that christians will have varying views on this. Because the bible says we can tr to change people to what is right, but ultimately we have to stop trying because it is between them and God if they want to change or not. And yes I even apply that to myself since there are things I could probably change but don't. Such as watching R rated movies.

You make some good points. I don't think we can change people - only God can do that - but we should never stop sharing our faith in Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

 

[Archivist]

The question originally presented assumes Phillips would not bake a cake for them - which is a hypothetical. From the facts of the case, I don't know that Phillips would not bake "a cake" for them which is why I felt compelled to correct the assumption implicit in the question. I only know that he does not make SS wedding cakes.

But the couple wanted a wedding cake, and Phillips refuse to make one for them. That is discrimination.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But the couple wanted a wedding cake, and Phillips refuse to make one for them. That is discrimination.

Yes, those are the facts of the case, a wedding cake. We don't know what sort of cake he might have made for them, but he does not do SS wedding cakes. Discrimination vs his religious freedom, they all have rights.