Liberal and Conservative

[RestoreTheJoy]

If you were a cake baker and the KKK came in and asked for a cake that read " Send all the n****** back to Africa" would you do it? Not me, I'd tell them to take racist business some where else but then that's just me.

I wouldn't do that either.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I don't see any significant difference between a widget and a cake. If you'd make a cake for a straight couple, then you need to be prepared to make an identical cake (not a cake with explicit messages with which you disagree) for a gay couple. Or admit that you're not in the right business for your conscience.

If you cannot distinguish between a custom creation and a random cake off the shelf (or any other generic widget) than you cannot understand the issue here.

Let's say you are a baker. Some guy comes in and wants you to make a cake for his "Take America back from all the (insert group) party. You should be forced to do this even if you believe he and his message are abominable? That's your position.

 

[Belk]

If you were a cake baker and the KKK came in and asked for a cake that read " Send all the n****** back to Africa" would you do it? Not me, I'd tell them to take racist business some where else but then that's just me.

As would I. However, there are a couple issues here.

1) Writing a specific message, as has been discussed, runs afoul the first amendment. This is a different case then simply buying a cake.

2) "KKK" is not a protected class and so does not trigger anti discrimination laws.

 

[Belk]

It isn't making a statement about the person to whom you are selling. It is indeed wrong to coerce creative art from someone who disagrees with the message.

I disagree that selling a cake constitutes a message. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. What message is being conveyed with the selling of a wedding cake?

It's about the conscience of the one who creates the art, not the other guy. No one was ever talking about random generic items...cupcakes, cookies, cakes, whatever. Anyone can buy those all day long. No one has the right to compel someone to make something to celebrate an event his faith teaches is wrong.

I, the law makers, and the courts disagree with you. No one can compel speech. Baking a cake is not speech.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I disagree that selling a cake constitutes a message. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. What message is being conveyed with the selling of a wedding cake?



I, the law makers, and the courts disagree with you. No one can compel speech. Baking a cake is not speech.

Selling "a cake". No message in particular.

Selling a "wedding cake". This is only for a wedding and is indeed a custom creation. In the scriptures, only a man and a woman can marry (regardless of our now contrary state of the law today). So the baker has a choice...follow the legal meaning or the scriptural meaning. Most will bow to the system. One guy didn't. All the the wedding bakers targeted (or stumbled upon, given your perspective, if you believe it is incidental) had been in the biz for decades.

 

[Belk]

Selling "a cake". No message in particular.

Selling a "wedding cake". This is only for a wedding. In the scriptures, only a man and a woman can marry (regardless of our now contrary state of the law today). So the baker has a choice...follow the legal meaning or the scriptural meaning. Most will bow to the system. One guy didn't. All the the wedding bakers targeted (or stumbled upon, given your perspective, if you believe it is incidental) had been in the biz for decades.

I note that you did not respond that it contains a message. Do you agree that there is no message inherent in selling a cake?


As to the bakers conscience. The baker should likely follow his convictions and stop selling wedding cakes. It is not the responsibility of society to ensure you follow your own religious laws. If I had an issue selling books to Christians I would not start a book shop and then complain when a christian attempted to patronize my business.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I note that you did not respond that it contains a message. Do you agree that there is no message inherent in selling a cake?


As to the bakers conscience. The baker should likely follow his convictions and stop selling wedding cakes. It is not the responsibility of society to ensure you follow your own religious laws. If I had an issue selling books to Christians I would not start a book shop and then complain when a christian attempted to patronize my business.

A generic cake...of course. Just like a generic book, as you are saying. The only way your example is equivalent is if the book seller has always been in the business of making custom books for weddings and someone comes in who demands a wedding book for a non-wedding.

A wedding cake is a custom creation for a wedding. If someone doesn't want to do a wedding cake for what cannot be a wedding in his faith, why do you feel it is acceptable to coerce him or force him out of business? Just go somewhere else.

 

[Belk]

A generic cake...of course. Just like a generic book, as you are saying.

What message is conveyed by a wedding cake?

A wedding cake is a custom creation for a wedding. If someone doesn't want to do a wedding cake for what cannot be a wedding in his faith, why do you feel it is acceptable to coerce him or force him out of business?

For the same reason it is acceptable to coerce those who did not wish to serve Jews because of their religion. Your right to your conscience starts to be an issue when it negatively affects the rights of others. If your religion informs you that you can not perform an action it is up to you to ensure you are not breaking the law.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

A cake is not always just a cake. Its not the fact that a gay couple wanted to purchase an item from the shop but that they wanted a specific message put upon that cake. Ultimately there are statements that would violate anyone’s sense of decency and we, if we have intestinal fortitude, would reject such a request to participate in the advancement of that message.

The gay couple could of easily bought a cake from that shop and either completed the message themselves or had someone else complete it for them.

Right. It was never about acquiring a cake. It became about forcing the message.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Speaking of conservatives, has anyone else seen the new Now This video of the Republican Jesus Sketch? You just google Now This News Republican Jesus video to watch it. I know about it because the video was retweeted by J.K. Rowling on Twitter. It would be funny if it weren't so sad and true.

 

[Tigger45]

1) Writing a specific message, as has been discussed, runs afoul the first amendment. This is a different case then simply buying a cake.

2) "KKK" is not a protected class and so does not trigger anti discrimination laws.[/QUOTE]

So it begs the question. If the KKK where a protected class under the law of the land in which you reside would you post a statement against your own conscience?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Actually, no we don't:

On the subject of gay rights, Wink acknowledged that the Bible condemned homosexuality. But he argued that Jesus, who never commented on homosexuality in the Gospels, would have naturally supported a marginalized group.

These are not the same thing at all as approving what they do. Sure, you support marginalized people and help them, whoever they are.

Jesus hung out with tax collectors, sinners, and prostitutes because He was drawing them....not because He was approving what they were doing. He always told them, "Go and sin no more." He was sent to the children of Israel, not the gentiles, so of course He didn't talk about it. Paul, on the other hand, was sent to the outsiders, so they were not well-versed in the Law and were indeed much steeped in sexual immorality. Therefore, Paul had to instruct on these issues where Jesus did not. They already knew.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

When looking at loving relationships between same gender couples, the prohibitions are simply not in the scriptures. The clobber passages that are cited in our bible do not address same gender relationships as we know them today. To continue to cite these passages to discriminate and do harm to LGBTQ persons is uninformed at best and disingenuous at worse. To continue to cite two thousand to four-thousand-year-old understandings and writings without consideration of twenty first century education, science, reason, and experience is ludicrous and unfaithful.

There is NO Biblical EXCEPTION for "loving couples" as you keep insisting. It simply isn't in there. No biblical addendum has rewritten the proscription against sexual immorality in all its forms. It was not right then and it is not right now.

Similarly, there is no exception for adultery....if you now argue that the new couples are truly loving and their marriages were really bad. You are making equivalent assertions here and you cannot do that from the standard - the Word of God.

ALL sexual immorality is wrong and that will never change. It doesn't matter than everyone and his brother is shacking up - fornication is still against biblical standards. It doesn't matter that homosexuality and the alphabet terms are exalted today - they still violate biblical standards. It doesn't matter that half the world is divorced today....God still says divorce is wrong (with a few biblical exceptions that break the covenant).

 

[Belk]

1) Writing a specific message, as has been discussed, runs afoul the first amendment. This is a different case then simply buying a cake.

2) "KKK" is not a protected class and so does not trigger anti discrimination laws.

So it begs the question. If the KKK where a protected class under the law of the land in which you reside would you post a statement against your own conscience?[/QUOTE]

No, but then I would also make certain I was not placed in a position to have to make the choice to break the law.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Or is it not letting people impose their understanding of morality on other people? The court is not making the slightest effort to change anyone's morality.

When a court forces someone to perform an action against his faith, that's coercion and unacceptable.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Can the engineer who designed the widget have the right to demand that it not be sold to left-handed green-eyed people because his/her religion regards them as an abomination?

No, of course not. Generic goods sold off the shelf are sold to anyone who has the money (and is of sufficient age, in the case of a few items). There is a distinction between widgets and artistic services.

 

[Paidiske]

In criminal law - that is true. But in civil law, the seller, the manufacturer and even the ammo manufacture can be held liable for a person's bad actions.

What's legal and what's moral are two different categories. Although I'd have some moral critique to offer of the manufacture and sale of such things, it wouldn't be holding them responsible for what the buyer does with them, specifically.

If you cannot distinguish between a custom creation and a random cake off the shelf (or any other generic widget) than you cannot understand the issue here.

Let's say you are a baker. Some guy comes in and wants you to make a cake for his "Take America back from all the (insert group) party. You should be forced to do this even if you believe he and his message are abominable? That's your position.

There are two types of wedding cake. One might have a specific message conveyed by it; in the toppers or in writing or whatnot. But most are - well - cakes. If a gay couple had had the same cake I had at my wedding, there would be nothing about it to indicate which one was for them and which for me. It was just a rather elaborate cake.

So; should the baker be forced to write a pro-gay marriage message on a cake? No. Should he be required to make exactly the same wedding cake he'd make for a straight couple? Yes.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

What's legal and what's moral are two different categories. Although I'd have some moral critique to offer of the manufacture and sale of such things, it wouldn't be holding them responsible for what the buyer does with them, specifically.



There are two types of wedding cake. One might have a specific message conveyed by it; in the toppers or in writing or whatnot. But most are - well - cakes. If a gay couple had had the same cake I had at my wedding, there would be nothing about it to indicate which one was for them and which for me. It was just a rather elaborate cake.

So; should the baker be forced to write a pro-gay marriage message on a cake? No. Should he be required to make exactly the same wedding cake he'd make for a straight couple? Yes.

None of them are wedding cakes right off the shelf; there is no such thing.

They are all ordered and designed in conjunction with the client.

 

[Paidiske]

But if there's nothing offensive about the design itself, the baker is wrong to refuse service because he objects to the couple.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

But if there's nothing offensive about the design itself, the baker is wrong to refuse service because he objects to the couple.

He objects to an event. You are attempting to make it about the couple. It is about the event. The couple is irrelevant.

He does not want to create a wedding cake for a non wedding. He doesn't do those events. Nor Halloween events, divorce party cakes, etc.