Christian Bakers and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Galaxy Hunter]

I don't see such a trend here.

The rise of the GLBTQ community is not a new thing. Acceptence of that behavior is a trend that started years ago and has gotten stronger every year. Why would you think it will start to weaken now?

 

[Archivist]

The rise of the GLBTQ community is not a new thing. Acceptence of that behavior is a trend that started years ago and has gotten stronger every year. Why would you think it will start to weaken now?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was adopted 54 years ago. That act prohibits discrimination based on sex. Yet in 54 years no church has been forced by the government to hire female pastors or priests. Why?? First Amendment. You have provided no proof that anything will be different for homosexuals.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

I have to admit that is a good point.Thanks!

 

[Archivist]

I have to admit that is a good point.Thanks!

And for the record, I firmly believe that no church should ever be forced by the government to hire someone or perform a wedding or do anything that violates church tenets.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was adopted 54 years ago. That act prohibits discrimination based on sex. Yet in 54 years no church has been forced by the government to hire female pastors or priests. Why?? First Amendment. You have provided no proof that anything will be different for homosexuals.

Churches' ability to have their own disciplines and practices will continue as they wish. What has changed, however, is the assumption that the public should broadly share conservative Protestant values by default.

 

[Archivist]

Having children is a second issue, as I said.
Not being able to have them is a dysfunction, whether you think you want them or not.

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

A blind person may say they don't care about seeing, but they have no idea what they lack.

But a blind person is not "dysfunctional."

 

[pat34lee]

Would you care to explain how the work of a make-up artist is not art but the work of a baker is art? That is part of what the defense in this case is claiming.

While there is artistic talent involved, a make-up artist
is not creating something. Their task is to accentuate
what is already there.

A baker works from scratch, like a painter or sculptor.
They can make anything from a simple round cake with
white icing to almost anything a person could want.

Definitely art.

 

[Archivist]

Nope. We are not to support sinful behavior, no
matter who the people are that are involved.

Supplying a cake for a reception isn't supporting sinful behavior, any more than catering a meal for a reception is supporting sinful behavior.

 

[pat34lee]

First, no one in this thread is "against" this baker. I'm not "against" a person who drives 75 is a 65 zone on the highway, I just want him/her to follow the law. Same thing with the baker, I just want him to obey the law.

Second, the government forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage isn't an issue.

...isn't an issue yet.

 

[Archivist]

While there is artistic talent involved, a make-up artist
is not creating something. Their task is to accentuate what is already there.

A baker works from scratch, like a painter or sculptor. They can make anything from a simple round cake with white icing to almost anything a person could want.

Definitely art.

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

 

[pat34lee]

Churches' ability to have their own disciplines and practices will continue as they wish. What has changed, however, is the assumption that the public should broadly share conservative Protestant values by default.

This has nothing to do with the public. It only
shows the courts' lack of Protestant values.

 

[Archivist]

...isn't an issue yet.

Once again, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their sex. That was adopted 54 years ago, yet the government hasn't forced any church to have women pastors or priests.

 

[FireDragon76]

This has nothing to do with the public. It only
shows the courts' lack of Protestant values.

The court reflects the public. Conservative Protestants are a minority in the US.

 

[pat34lee]

Supplying a cake for a reception isn't supporting sinful behavior, any more than catering a meal for a reception is supporting sinful behavior.

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.

 

[Archivist]

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.

A few years back, Georgia was considering a state law that would allow businesses to descriminate against homosexuals. CNN visited a small Georgia town to interview florists there. Every one of the five florists would refuse to serve a gay couple. What about gas stations? What about grocery stores? grocery stores or gas stations in town won’t serve you because you’re gay? Or because you’re Muslim? Or black? What if the next town is the same, and the town after that? This is why we have a Civil Rights Act.

 

[pat34lee]

The court reflects the public. Conservative Protestants are a minority in the US.

Everyone is a minority in the US.
But,
Evangelical Protestants are still the largest religious group at 25%.
Christians, including Catholics and Mormons are ~70%.

With Jews, that makes bible believers about 72%
of the population.

 

[Archivist]

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.

The baker bakes wedding cakes. He cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to certain classes of people. A food store doesn't have to stock any particular type of food, so long as they do not refuse to sell the food the stock to anyone in those classes. There is no way to require that they carry Kosher food or Campbell's soup or Total cereal.

 

[FireDragon76]

Everyone is a minority in the US.
But,
Evangelical Protestants are the largest group still at 25%.

That's a minority.

Christians, including Catholics and Mormons are ~70%.

With Jews, that makes bible believers about 72%
of the population.

A great many of those folks you think of as "Bible believers" don't have a problem rendering services to gay people. My church doesn't teach it's participation in sin to bake a cake for two gay people, even if you believe gay marriage is wrong.

 

[Archivist]

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.

Untrue. The couple went into the bakery. They were not there long before the baker realized they were a gay couple. Then the baker refused to serve them. The refusal was not because of what they wanted on their cake—they never even discussed the design—but only because they were gay. It was only later on, after the case had commenced, that the baker said he would sell them an undecorated cake.

 

[Foxfyre]

A few years back, Georgia was considering a state law that would allow businesses to descriminate against homosexuals. CNN visited a small Georgia town to interview florists there. Every one of the five florists would refuse to serve a gay couple. What about gas stations? What about grocery stores? grocery stores or gas stations in town won’t serve you because you’re gay? Or because you’re Muslim? Or black? What if the next town is the same, and the town after that? This is why we have a Civil Rights Act.

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?