Christian Bakers and Gay Wedding Cakes

[SilverBear]

Yep after all there are many businesses that refuse serving customers ,and it is never thought of.
I find this thread odd in general, the symbolism of a cake for a gay wedding doe not convict Christians posting here.
A man's life ruined because He puts God first?

ruined how?

This man refuses other cakes as well,he will not work for those who hate gays.

He refuses to to serve interracial couples? or Jewish couples?

 

[Archivist]

People arguing that the baker has some sort of right to not bake a cake for a same-sex couple forget that the baker is a businessman. As such he must obey the laws of Colorado which prohibit discrimination for any of the following reasons: Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation (including transgender status), physical or mental disability, marriage to a coworker and retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.

Some have said what if he had refused to bake a cake for Neo-Nazis. Look at the list--Neo-Nazis are not a protected class. But when you discriminate against a protected class you are breaking the law.

 

[SilverBear]

You can use this analogy as many times as you want ,it still will not work.

It works just fine. Your discomfort with it says that much.

There are different Races of people ,but God Made a man and a woman.
Not 2 men ,not 2 women but male and female.

if only race and orientation were being compared. they aren't.

the analogy is between those justifying discrimination. There is not a single justification or excuse or rhetoric or dehumanizing tactic that the anti-gay crowd uses that racists don't. This includes hiding behind the bible.

If you don't like this then maybe you should look at the logic and ethics of your own justifications.

Homosexuality is unnatural ,and no matter how hard you try you cannot deny the Bible

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind
2. 2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

Racists use the same dehumanizing tactic to justify prejudice ,discrimination and even violence.

 

[SilverBear]

What behavior are you talking about and what is the visible sign? Not following you SilverBear

All i did was copy your post's last sentence but changed the minority.

 

[SilverBear]

Not the same thing at all SilverBear. And if you will be honest with yourself you know a sexual behavior and a religious practice can't be compared in that way. Besides is there any business you can think of that would the owner would not sell to a Jew?Religion is entirely a behavior. According to you this means your baker should be able to refuse his services to a Jewish couple.
Orientation, c,mon of what?. Besides people aren't there sexual behavior. That's very unhealthy for 'homosexuals' They are more than their sexual orientation. I know I don't want to reduce my identity like that. Besides it's automatic for straight people to put that in it's proper place. I'm more than what I do in the bedroom, more than my sex.

Orientation isn't a sexual behavior. You say that you are more than what you do in the bedroom but you are happy to reduce homosexuals to just that.

 

[SilverBear]

If the Arians wanted to enforce their right they really could make blacks serve them that way.

it was called segregation

But the issue would be looked at for what it is. Bullying a specific group. That's what's happening here. The Christian businesses are getting targeted. Don't hear any muslim businesses in the news.

because Muslims aren't discriminating

 

[Archivist]

because Muslims aren't discriminating

I recall that some Conservatives tried to order wedding cakes from a Muslim bakery. They wanted to get it recorded and show that Muslim bakers were also refusing to serve Homosexuals. The Muslim bakery refused to supply a wedding cake. The problem--the bakery didn't bake wedding cakes. It only baked bread.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

People arguing that the baker has some sort of right to not bake a cake for a same-sex couple forget that the baker is a businessman. As such he must obey the laws of Colorado which prohibit discrimination for any of the following reasons: Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation (including transgender status), physical or mental disability, marriage to a coworker and retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.

Some have said what if he had refused to bake a cake for Neo-Nazis. Look at the list--Neo-Nazis are not a protected class. But when you discriminate against a protected class you are breaking the law.

Do you think grocery stores should be forced to sell Kosher foods?

 

[SolomonVII]

That is not what the Church teaches us, nor is it what biology teaches us. It is nothing more than your opinion.



You raised the issue, not me.

Yea, it is what the church teaches, and what biology teaches, as I had already gone to great pains to elucidate, in terms of the function of biology.
I can also go to the Catechism in which the tern used "gravely disordered toward moral evil". That pretty much covers dysfunction in my view, especially in light of how moral (Catholic) philosopher Robert P George defines Catholic teaching on marriage in terms of the procreative and unitive aspects.

And no I didn't raise the issue of dysfuncton. I answered somebody else's question on how same sex relationships are functional, and how they are not, upon which you interjected.
Now if you want to actually discuss what I have been writing, please do.

 

[Archivist]

Do you think grocery stores should be forced to sell Kosher foods?

No.

But that isn't what is happening in this case. If this couple had requested doughnuts the baker could refuse because he doesn't make doughnuts. You can't force someone to supply something that they don't deal in. However, this baker bakes wedding cakes. Since that is his line of work, he cannot discriminate against a same sex couple in violation of the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

People arguing that the baker has some sort of right to not bake a cake for a same-sex couple forget that the baker is a businessman. As such he must obey the laws of Colorado which prohibit discrimination for any of the following reasons: Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation (including transgender status), physical or mental disability, marriage to a coworker and retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.

Some have said what if he had refused to bake a cake for Neo-Nazis. Look at the list--Neo-Nazis are not a protected class. But when you discriminate against a protected class you are breaking the law.

So a gay wedding is a protected event under civil rights laws? That is what the bakers were not wanting to be a part of. They were quite happy to sell whatever products they had to sell to anybody including gay people, including the gay people planning the wedding.

If the bakers had turned down an order for a black supremacy rally or an anti-gay rally held by black people, also a protected class, would they have been cited for discriminating against black people? Even though black people came into their shop all the time and were cheerfully served with anything the bakers had for sale. The bakers would cheerfully design a birthday cake for gay people or black people or any other people? It was purely the event, and not the people involved, that the baker objected to?

Why should anybody have to participate in an event that he/she believed to be morally or philosophically or ethically wrong?

 

[Archivist]

Yea, it is what the church teaches, and what biology teaches, as I had already gone to great pains to elucidate, in terms of the function of biology.
I can also go to the Catechism in which the tern used "gravely disordered toward moral evil". That pretty much covers dysfunction in my view, especially in light of how moral (Catholic) philosopher Robert P George defines Catholic teaching on marriage in terms of the procreative and unitive aspects.

Proof please that biology teaches that biology teaches that couples who cannot procreate are dysfunctional. You keep saying that, but I have seen no proof. As to that being what "the Church" teaches, the Roman Catholic Church is not "the Church." Mandatory procreation is certainly not taught in the Lutheran Church.

So now, my girlfriend and I are "gravely disordered toward moral evil" because she cannot have children. Care to expalin that one?

And no I didn't raise the issue of dysfuncton. I answered somebody else's question on how same sex relationships are functional, and how they are not, upon which you interjected.
Now if you want to actually discuss what I have been writing, please do.

This is a discussion forum. I am free to interject. And actually you were the first one to use the "dysfunctional" to describe relationships that cannot produce children. Since I am in such a relationship, I take offense to being called dysfunctional.

 

[Archivist]

So a gay wedding is a protected event under civil rights laws? That is what the bakers were not wanting to be a part of. They were quite happy to sell whatever products they had to sell to anybody including gay people, including the gay people planning the wedding.

If the bakers had turned down an order for a black supremacy rally or an anti-gay rally held by black people, also a protected class, would they have been cited for discriminating against black people? Even though black people came into their shop all the time and were cheerfully served with anything the bakers had for sale. The bakers would cheerfully design a birthday cake for gay people or black people or any other people? It was purely the event, and not the people involved, that the baker objected to?

Why should anybody have to participate in an event that he/she believed to be morally or philosophically or ethically wrong?

Despite the name a wedding cake isn't served at a wedding. It is a food item served at a reception. The baker isn't participating in the wedding, he is simply supplying a cake for a reception.

And a baker wouldn't have to supply a cake for an anti-gay rally or a black supremacy rally if he only made wedding cakes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Despite the name a wedding cake isn't served at a wedding. It is a food item served at a reception. The baker isn't participating in the wedding, he is simply supplying a cake for a reception.

And a baker wouldn't have to supply a cake for an anti-gay rally or a black supremacy rally if he only made wedding cakes.

The baker doesn't only make wedding cakes. I'm pretty sure that it is a rare baker who could even make a living only selling wedding cakes. But it does not matter whether the reception is part of or separate from the wedding. If the baker does not wish to be a part of that event he should not have to be any more than he should be required to participate in an event requested by black people if he had moral, philosophical, or ethical problems with it.

Should a gay baker have to design a cake requested by black people for a seminar that featured objections to gay marriage just because the reception would be in a separate location from the lecture hall? I would go to bat for that gay baker in a heartbeat because nobody should have to support in ANY way an event with which he/she has moral, philosophical, or ethical problems. I would not design the cake for those black people either in that circumstance, but I would emphatically defend a black baker in not having to bake a cake for an event at the Westboro Baptist Church or the local KKK convention no matter where the cake was set up and consumed.

In order for personal convictions be respected and tolerance to be real, it has to apply to everybody, even when we ourselves do not share the conviction of another.

Once again, any and all of such people and all people should cheerfully and courteously provide whatever products they normally offer to sale to each and every customer who comes in no matter what their personal attributes or flavors might be. But nobody--NOBODY--should have to participate in an event in ANY respect when he/she has has moral, philosophical, or ethical objections.

 

[Archivist]

The baker doesn't only make wedding cakes. I'm pretty sure that it is a rare baker who could even make a living only selling wedding cakes. But it does not matter whether the reception is part of or separate from the wedding. If the baker does not wish to be a part of that event he should not have to be any more than he should be required to participate in an event requested by black people if he had moral, philosophical, or ethical problems with it.

Should a gay baker have to design a cake requested by black people for a seminar that featured objections to gay marriage just because the reception would be in a separate location from the lecture hall? I would go to bat for that gay baker in a heartbeat because nobody should have to support in ANY way an event with which he/she has moral, philosophical, or ethical problems. I would not design the cake for those black people either in that circumstance, but I would emphatically defend a black baker in not having to bake a cake for an event at the Westboro Baptist Church or the local KKK convention no matter where the cake was set up and consumed.

In order for personal convictions be respected and tolerance to be real, it has to apply to everybody, even when we ourselves do not share the conviction of another.

Once again, any and all of such people and all people should cheerfully and courteously provide whatever products they normally offer to sale to each and every customer who comes in no matter what their personal attributes or flavors might be. But nobody--NOBODY--should have to participate in an event in ANY respect when he/she has has moral, philosophical, or ethical objections.

First, I didn't say this baker only made wedding cakes. I said a baker; I was speaking generically. The Muslim baker I referenced earlier couldn't be forced to bake a same sex wedding cake because he baked bread not cakes.

Second, you don't seem to understand the concept of a protected class. A black baker wouldn't have to bake a cake for the KKK because the KKK isn't part of a protected class.

Third, there are, sadly, still churches that prohibit marriage between whites and blacks on religious grounds. Should a white baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple because it violates his beliefs. What if he refused to bake a cake for a Christian bride who was marrying a Muslim man?

 

[pat34lee]

So wrong. Neither of us have any desire to have children so it is not a loss to either of us. Even if she could have children we would probably choose to not have them. We are not “dysfunctional” as you have wrongly claimed, nor are same-sex couples who cannot physically have children “dysfunctional.”

Actually, it is the very definition of dysfunctional.
Whether or not you want functionality is beside
the point. Your views might be totally different if
you both were fertile.

 

[pat34lee]

African Americans should be able to get food anywhere but shouldn't force Christians into compromising heir beliefs and allowing them to actually sit in the same restaurants and celebrating the visible signs of racial equality that are used to celebrate and signify the behavior that the majority considers immoral.

No matter how many times you try, homosexuals are
not the same as blacks or other minorities. They are
abnormal in their sexual preferences. That is not a
reason to grant special rights or victim status to them.

 

[pat34lee]

But we aren't talking about promoting homosexuality. We are talking about supplying a cake for a reception.

And why are they having the reception?
To celebrate the union of two deviants.
Not something a Christian should promote.

 

[Archivist]

Actually, it is the very definition of dysfunctional.
Whether or not you want functionality is beside the point. Your views might be totally different if
you both were fertile.

So very wrong. Even though God has declared children to be a blessing from Him, there is nothing in the Bible that states every married couple must have children. If you can find Scripture that says otherwise please provide it. And I know many fertile couples who have chosen to not have children.

 

[Archivist]

And why are they having the reception?
To celebrate the union of two deviants. Not something a Christian should promote.

No, it is to celebrate the union of two human beings, people who we are to love.