Gay bakeries offer a heaping helping of hypocrisy

[AMDG]

EVERY honest person knows in his heart that marriage is about sex--not commitment. (If it was about commitment alone then brothers and sisters could get married to each other since they are certainly committed to each other, same with mothers and sons and fathers and daughters.)

In bygone days even children's jumprope songs showed the common knowledge: "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby carriage". It has only been since the 1960s and the pervasive contraceptive "Pill", that there has been a separation between marriage, sex, and the natural biological product of that act. In fact, Humane Vitae even warned us about the consequences of the "pill" and one of them was same-sex "marriage". And puleeze--both of us know that the ONLY way of homosexual sex is called "sodomy" (after the City of Sodom that God destroyed because it chose to practice the abomination. And yes, until rather recently, it WAS considered illegal on the books whether or not anyone chose to commit the sin.) I'm quite certain that we are all guilty of some sin at some time, but I don't believe that everyone is guilty of the sin of sodomy.

BTW I mentioned the death threats because THAT's exactly what Christian bakers, ministers, florists, bed and breakfast owners, photographers, et. al face should they insist on their own rights not to provide service to those who want to force their will on them. I point out that Christians face that because they are meek and mild, unlike Muslims who also have religious beliefs and NO ONE DARES try to force them to violate theirs.

"Commitment" ceremonies and even civil unions are NOT the same thing as "marriage". "Marriage" does indeed assume more than a platonic relationship. And in the particular state where the bakers had been sued, same-sex "marriage" was indeed illegal at the time. That's why the homosexual couple had to go to another state to do the deed.

Also, the bakers were not being discriminatory because they normally sold baked goods to those who openly flouted their sexual choices. It was just that the bakers simply could not spend hours helping to plan a celebration (what are the colors of the wedding party? where did the couple meet? where are they planning to honeymoon? How many children and the dreams...oh wait that's impossible) for the illegal activity and one of the homosexual couple got his nose "out of joint" because of it.

A person's sexual choices are not like skin color or gender or age. Like the controversial Bulletin Board notes, no one is born a homosexual. If the perversion was genetic, then we could expect identical twins to both have the sexual problem, but that isn't so.

 

[Cute Tink]

EVERY honest person knows in his heart that marriage is about sex--not commitment. (If it was about commitment alone then brothers and sisters could get married to each other since they are certainly committed to each other, same with mothers and sons and fathers and daughters.)

I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate why people get married. Got statistics that reflect that people get married for sex in a nation where people seem to have no trouble having sex without marriage?

And puleeze--both of us know that the ONLY way of homosexual sex is called "sodomy" (after the City of Sodom that God destroyed because it chose to practice the abomination. And yes, until rather recently, it WAS considered illegal on the books whether or not anyone chose to commit the sin.) I'm quite certain that we are all guilty of some sin at some time, but I don't believe that everyone is guilty of the sin of sodomy.

I don't care why Sodom was destroyed, but there is some debate among Christians about the specifics. What I do know is that rape was pretty rampant according to the story as well. I don't know about you, but I personally consider rape to be pretty awful.

BTW I mentioned the death threats because THAT's exactly what Christian bakers, ministers, florists, bed and breakfast owners, photographers, et. al face should they insist on their own rights not to provide service to those who want to force their will on them.

And as I said, I agree that death threats, destruction of property and all that is horrible behavior and those who do those should be punished accordingly.

I point out that Christians face that because they are meek and mild, unlike Muslims who also have religious beliefs and NO ONE DARES try to force them to violate theirs.

Not all Christians are meek and mild. There is plenty of history of people identifying as Christian who blow places up to make a point.

"Commitment" ceremonies and even civil unions are NOT the same thing as "marriage". "Marriage" does indeed assume more than a platonic relationship. And in the particular state where the bakers had been sued, same-sex "marriage" was indeed illegal at the time. That's why the homosexual couple had to go to another state to do the deed.

Again, I don't think you are in a position to dictate why other people get married.

Also, the bakers were not being discriminatory because they normally sold baked goods to those who openly flouted their sexual choices.

1. In the two states where this happened, it is plainly illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
2. Discrimination against a celebration engaged in only (or primarily) homosexuals is discrimination against homosexuals.

It was just that the bakers simply could not spend hours helping to plan a celebration (what are the colors of the wedding party? where did the couple meet? where are they planning to honeymoon? How many children and the dreams...oh wait that's impossible) for the illegal activity and one of the homosexual couple got his nose "out of joint" because of it.

That's new information. Please link to this part of the story.

Since when do "bakers" plan weddings? They don't need all that information to bake a cake.

Also, it is not illegal to have a commitment ceremony or celebration. It simply carries no legal weight.

A person's sexual choices are not like skin color or gender or age. Like the controversial Bulletin Board notes, no one is born a homosexual. If the perversion was genetic, then we could expect identical twins to both have the sexual problem, but that isn't so.

The controversial Bulletin Board may be entirely inaccurate, but that's off topic.

Whether sexuality is a choice or a matter of birth is not as cut and dry as you would like to think.

 

[ebia]

Again, why do you need Christian bakers?

I presume they only make small cakes, to help you avoid gluttony.

 

[Antigone]

I presume they only make small cakes, to help you avoid gluttony.

Or make them taste really terrible.

Remind me not to go to a Christian baker if I ever do get married.

 

[LoAmmi]

EVERY honest person knows in his heart that marriage is about sex--not commitment. (If it was about commitment alone then brothers and sisters could get married to each other since they are certainly committed to each other, same with mothers and sons and fathers and daughters.)

My marriage isn't about sex. Please take your broad brush elsewhere.

And puleeze--both of us know that the ONLY way of homosexual sex is called "sodomy" (after the City of Sodom that God destroyed because it chose to practice the abomination. And yes, until rather recently, it WAS considered illegal on the books whether or not anyone chose to commit the sin.) I'm quite certain that we are all guilty of some sin at some time, but I don't believe that everyone is guilty of the sin of sodomy.

The prophet of the Lord, Ezekiel, disagrees with you on this point. I'll trust Ezekiel, someone who spoke directly to HaShem, over AMDG, Internet forum poster.

 

[RDKirk]

My marriage isn't about sex. Please take your broad brush elsewhere.

Actually, I'd agree with AMDG on that point, and I'd quote:

If it was about commitment alone then brothers and sisters could get married to each other since they are certainly committed to each other, same with mothers and sons and fathers and daughters.

Certainly there are individual marriages that are not about sex. My grandfather re-married in his 80s, and I don't think sex was the reason for that relationshop.

But the primary characteristic of the social institution of marriage that differentiates it from other relationships is the sexual component. Until modern times, other cultures have often and openly valued other relationships even more than marriage. Marriage was usually not the most cherished relationship of an ancient Greek man, for instance. For them, the purpose of marriage was to create a legacy--to sire children.

And it wasn't that high on the list of the Apostle Paul either, for that matter. Paul pretty much considered the need for sex the only reason to get married.

Why did David get married? We can't really see where he had an overwhelming sense of emotional attachment to any of his wives.

 

[LoAmmi]

AMDG painted with a broad brush. I will say that some marriages are about sex but others are not. Mine isn't. I know other people who's marriages are not about sex.

 

[RDKirk]

AMDG painted with a broad brush. I will say that some marriages are about sex but others are not. Mine isn't. I know other people who's marriages are not about sex.

AMDG painted with a general brush: "...marriage is about sex." If AMDG had said "every marriage is about sex," that would have been a broad brush, but clearly the meaning was that in the institution of marriage it is the sexual component that differentiates it from every other relationship.

 

[LoAmmi]

AMDG painted with a general brush: "...marriage is about sex." If AMDG had said "every marriage is about sex," that would have been a broad brush, but clearly the meaning was that in the institution of marriage it is the sexual component that differentiates it from every other relationship.

Fair enough. I'll accept this.

She's still in disagreement with Ezekiel about Sodom.

 

[AMDG]

About that "new" information about what the bakers do, that was from an interview with one of the owners of Sweet Cakes who was sued because of she was unable to provide what the vengeful homosexual wanted. The interview was some time ago so I'm surprised that you consider it new "news". The owner was in tears (and not just because the business was destroyed and her family was receiving death threats.) Fact is wedding cakes are NOT like Costco sheet cakes simply mass produced and offered on the shelf. They are specialty cakes requiring much involvement and cooperation between the purchaser and the baker. The specialty cake baker almost BECOMES part of the celebration. Obviously that was impossible.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oregon-cake-bakers-vvs

BTW shop owners used to routinely have signs in their shops (not just bakery shops, but in restaurants and all) "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE". Even MacDonald's can refuse service for "no shirt or no shoes" and fancy restaurants will simply insist on ties and jackets for service (heck, they might even provide the items.) We even have a Bible story Jesus told about someone who had to be turned away from a party because he didn't present himself properly for the event.

The fact remains that the vengeful homosexual couple TARGETED a bakery owned by this Christian couple. They KNEW the couple did cakes for traditional marriages and not for ones with two brides and yet they were bound and determined to destroy the bakery. They could have easily had chosen other bakeries, perhaps owned by gay people (or we find out from the ones called that refused to bake cakes explicitly celebrating traditional marriage) but no, they wanted to force their wills. Well now we know that it's not about "discrimination", because now that the "shoe is on the other foot", the same sex marriage crowd have shown their "colors." They simply want to force their wills on others.

Oh and about the Prophet Ezekiel suddenly thinking that God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of sodomy (which is against God's explicit will) please give me a break. Even the very word "sodomy" comes from "Sodom" which was destroyed by God for the sin. It's "common knowledge". Years back the U.S. even had a Surgeon General claim that we were "slouching toward Sodom and Gomorrah" and that at the rate we're going, we'll end up apologizing for the sin of Sodom. The sin of Sodom was so pernicious, according to the Collegeville Bible Study I took some years back, that the angels that God sent to determine how evil Sodom had become were propositioned and Lot even offered his daughters to no avail. (Yes, I thought it rather shocking.)

 

[AMDG]

AMDG painted with a broad brush. I will say that some marriages are about sex but others are not. Mine isn't. I know other people who's marriages are not about sex.

Marriage is not sexual? Then why can't mother and child marry? They are committed. How about two spinster sisters? Or two brothers? I've seen advertisements for roommates on college bulletin boards. Are they asking for a marriage partner? If not, why not? Simple friends that live together aren't considered married? Why not?

Marriage is not a platonic relationship. About the only marriages that the Church will accept wasn't about sex was that of the BVM and her chaste spouse, Joseph (and that was because of cultural demands and the need to portray the Holy Family as a family) and marriages in which decrees of Nullity from a former attempted marriage haven't come through yet. Even the Martins (the parents of Saint Therese the Little Flower) had to be lectured by the priest that they were NOT to live as "brother and sister" since they were MARRIED. You know there used to be rather nasty jokes about a married person that would withhold a partner's sexual rights to win an argument or punish the partner.

It's painting with a broad brush to consider sex part and parcel of marriage? Well it IS. Why do you think they call friends who are sexually active with each other yet not married to each other "friends with benefits" or "fornicators" if they are single or if married to other people, "adulterers"?

 

[LoAmmi]

My marriage isn't about sex.

 

[MikeK]

My marriage isn't about sex.

 

[Cute Tink]

About that "new" information about what the bakers do,

Bakers make cakes. Wedding planners plan weddings. You do know that, yes?

that was from an interview with one of the owners of Sweet Cakes who was sued because of she was unable to provide what the vengeful homosexual wanted. The interview was some time ago so I'm surprised that you consider it new "news". The owner was in tears (and not just because the business was destroyed and her family was receiving death threats.) Fact is wedding cakes are NOT like Costco sheet cakes simply mass produced and offered on the shelf. They are specialty cakes requiring much involvement and cooperation between the purchaser and the baker. The specialty cake baker almost BECOMES part of the celebration. Obviously that was impossible.

The article also doesn't say what you said before. She wasn't helping plan anything. It wasn't about her ability to spend hours planning the wedding for them. Fact of the matter is, the ownermerely wanted the information:

"For me personally when I would sit down with them I just would want to know everything about her wedding. I'd want to know about the flowers, her dress, the centerpieces, her colors, the way her hair is going to be. I would even want to talk about 'where are you going on your honeymoon?'"

So, you provide information I hadn't seen before (hence me calling it "new" information), but you didn't provide information that said what I was asking for.

BTW shop owners used to routinely have signs in their shops (not just bakery shops, but in restaurants and all) "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE". Even MacDonald's can refuse service for "no shirt or no shoes" and fancy restaurants will simply insist on ties and jackets for service (heck, they might even provide the items.) We even have a Bible story Jesus told about someone who had to be turned away from a party because he didn't present himself properly for the event.

And guess what? Having a basic dress code is different than discriminating against someone for characteristics that are protected under the law. Race, sex and, in this case, sexual orientation are not things you can just refuse service for.

The fact remains that the vengeful homosexual couple TARGETED a bakery owned by this Christian couple. They KNEW the couple did cakes for traditional marriages and not for ones with two brides and yet they were bound and determined to destroy the bakery. They could have easily had chosen other bakeries, perhaps owned by gay people (or we find out from the ones called that refused to bake cakes explicitly celebrating traditional marriage) but no, they wanted to force their wills. Well now we know that it's not about "discrimination", because now that the "shoe is on the other foot", the same sex marriage crowd have shown their "colors." They simply want to force their wills on others.

Your religious beliefs are not an excuse to break the law. If you want the freedom to discriminate against customers without limits, don't operate a business that is open to the public - make it private. Contract to make wedding cakes only for weddings conducted at churches that share your philosophy.

This case is still different, so the shoe is not on the other foot. If the lesbian couple had demanded a cake that said "Christian marriage is wrong" the case would have gone differently - i.e. the denial of service would have been about the decoration, not about the customers' sexual orientations.

 

[LoAmmi]

Oh and about the Prophet Ezekiel suddenly thinking that God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of sodomy (which is against God's explicit will) please give me a break. Even the very word "sodomy" comes from "Sodom" which was destroyed by God for the sin. It's "common knowledge". Years back the U.S. even had a Surgeon General claim that we were "slouching toward Sodom and Gomorrah" and that at the rate we're going, we'll end up apologizing for the sin of Sodom. The sin of Sodom was so pernicious, according to the Collegeville Bible Study I took some years back, that the angels that God sent to determine how evil Sodom had become were propositioned and Lot even offered his daughters to no avail. (Yes, I thought it rather shocking.)

Ezekiel 16

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.


I'll give you a break. Your argument is so broken you're willing to say you're more informed than the prophet. There's your break. Now, it says they "did detestable things" but nowhere does it say that alone was the reason there was a problem. Also, they tried to RAPE angels, which I imagine falls under detestable things. Rape and sodomy are not the same thing.

 

[AMDG]

Ezekiel 16

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.


I'll give you a break. Your argument is so broken you're willing to say you're more informed than the prophet. There's your break. Now, it says they "did detestable things" but nowhere does it say that alone was the reason there was a problem. Also, they tried to RAPE angels, which I imagine falls under detestable things. Rape and sodomy are not the same thing.

Yes, sodomy is detestable. God calls it an abomination for men to lie with men as with a woman (and women to lie with women as with a man.) It is unnatural. Not what God intended. And there would be no continuation of the human race if that was something He imagined for us.

And propositioning the angels to commit abominable actions is not RAPE. The angels were "propositioned". "Send them out to us" and when Lot offered his daughters instead, that was NOT what was wanted. No where does it say that they were offered RAPE.

Oh, and I had provided the link which was asked for. (Actually I was surprised that it was STILL available since the interview with Melissa of Sweet Cakes was some time ago. Strange that you never saw it.

And BTW not everyone uses "Wedding Planners". It was quite evident that the vengeful lesbians chose not to. If they had then they would never have been able to TARGET the Christian bakers who, as a matter of course, are PART of the celebration and not merely cake makers that make cakes that can be pulled off the shelf.

 

[LoAmmi]

Yeah, I'm sure the men of Sodom were just going to ask the angels to have sex with them and if the angels turned them down they would have gone home.

 

[Cute Tink]

Oh, and I had provided the link which was asked for. (Actually I was surprised that it was STILL available since the interview with Melissa of Sweet Cakes was some time ago. Strange that you never saw it.

Mainly because I was getting the information I got from excerpts of the actual proceedings and other such articles.

And BTW not everyone uses "Wedding Planners". It was quite evident that the vengeful lesbians chose not to. If they had then they would never have been able to TARGET the Christian bakers who, as a matter of course, are PART of the celebration and not merely cake makers that make cakes that can be pulled off the shelf.

I never used a wedding planner. I didn't say the baker was a wedding planner, though, or was needed as one. You did. Yet the link you provided does not back up that statement. Instead, the baker said she just wanted to know that information about weddings.

I don't know what some bakers do, but given that I have been to a few weddings in my life, I've never seen a baker who had to do more than bake a cake and decorate it. Some don't even deliver them to the location (someone in the wedding party is charged with picking it up). Clearly, there is no NEED to be "PART of the celebration" when baking a cake for a wedding.

As for "TARGET[ing]" this bakery, this article notes that they were customers in the past. I don't know about you, but if I had a positive experience with a bakery, why would I seek out a different baker for my wedding cake?

 

[MikeK]

We never met our baker, we called and ordered the cake we desired. Who one Earth let's a baker plan their wedding? Do they use their mechanic as a travel agent?

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah, I'm sure the men of Sodom were just going to ask the angels to have sex with them and if the angels turned them down they would have gone home.

A gang at the front door threatening violence doesn't sound like a "proposition" to me. That sounded to me like it was going to turn into a Judges 19:22-30 situation, had the angels not taken the situation in hand.