supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[FireDragon76]

Since you believe this man should stop baking all wedding cake for anyone if he refuses to bake them for gay couples do you feel your church should stop performing all weddings?

No. That would infringe on our constitutional right to free exercise of our religion within our institutions.

In addition, our pastors are free to refuse to marry whomever they wish, if they deem the marriage unacceptable to their conscience.

 

[durangodawood]

...I am curious though, why is it okay for your church to refuse to participate in gay weddings but not okay for a baker to do the same?

Probably because the church is not considered a public "business".

Churches can even discriminate on the basis of race. You can have a "no whites" church. Can't do that in business anywhere in the USA.

 

[durangodawood]

Where exactly was the "no gays" sign located in this bakery?

Oh brother.

Its not the sign. Its the policy. I mentioned the sign because it points to the policy. Its the in your face reminder of history. But its the policy that matters, obviously.

 

[FireDragon76]

Forgive me, I had my references wrong. I was referring to Alexander Schmemann's For the life of the World. I think he is right that every action, even the most menial should be a glorification of God and this division between the secular and the sacred, like the Gnostic division of flesh and spirit is a false dichotomy.

While Fr. Schmemann's theology is beautiful, it has some potential dangers when we apply it to how the Church and civil society should relate. Our western culture has a history of religious violence and bloodshed in the name of somebody imposing their "beautiful" piety upon another. So we wisely have learned to separate religion from public life, if it infringes on the rights of others.

In addition, Fr. Schmemann was a patriotic American. I find it ironic that a foreigner would use his theology against our country's principles. It smacks of the sort of incivility and lack of good taste I am talking about.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No one argues against discrimination generally. Not when pressed, anyway. Pretty much everyone is ok with "no shoes, no shirts, no service". There's many legitimate bases for business discrimination, like behavior & dress.

But we frown on discrimination on the basis of who someone basically is. Those old "no blacks" signs give me the creeps. And we have generally decided that such policies are incompatible with civilized society. We're starting to realize that "no gays" is basically the same thing.

The problem with your relating Jim Crow to this case is that the baker was willing to sell any of the cakes he had pre-made and were on display. What he was unwilling to do was craft a specific cake for this specific function or decorate it with symbols that indicated the union of two men.

The problem with demanding this of the cake maker is that we find no one is allowed to operate by their conscience or beliefs. Say there's a homosexual who owns a printing press that publishes books by self made authors. A man wants them to publish a book explaining why biblically and historically Homosexuality is wrong. Do you think the Homosexual must provide that service? Or is it a one way streak? I suspect you would defend the Printer but not the Baker yet the cases are the same in the level of repulsion each feels for the request being made of them.

I don't believe it is a fundamental right to be entitled to service, because it isn't.

 

[FireDragon76]

From what I heard, the two gay guys came into the shop and asked for a wedding cake, and then they preceded to look over some pictures of cakes and he asked whom the cake was for, they said themselves as they were a gay couple, he told them flatly, after an awkward pause, that their sexual orientation was a problem and he could not bake them a cake. That's blatantly illegal right there. Then they got quite upset, flicked him off and swore at him, and they left. I can see why they'ld be angry. It's not even the best possible Christian behavior, even if you have a conscientious problem baking them a cake. It displays extreme discomfort around gay people, which means he should not be in business serving wedding cakes to the public.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Probably because the church is not considered a public "business".

Churches can even discriminate on the basis of race. You can have a "no whites" church. Can't do that in business anywhere in the USA.

My question was one of morality, not legality. A discussion took place about this case yesterday where the baker's actions were objected to by the OP on the grounds of morality and his interpretation of scripture. While not trying to drag that discussion into this thread, I was curious if the OP's objections remained the same as yesterday in light of the fact that his church also refuses to engage in gay weddings. It appears his objections are now strictly secular, legal, and have nothing to do with morality or scripture. And since the legality of this case has yet to be decided, objections of that nature are premature.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

While Fr. Schmemann's theology is beautiful, it has some potential dangers when we apply it to how the Church and civil society should relate. Our western culture has a history of religious violence and bloodshed in the name of somebody imposing their "beautiful" piety upon another. So we wisely have learned to separate religion from public life, if it infringes on the rights of others.

In addition, Fr. Schmemann was a patriotic American. I find it ironic that a foreigner would use his theology against our country's principles. It smacks of the sort of incivility and lack of good taste I am talking about.

I don't know of Fr/ Schmemann's patriotism but I know what I've read concerning his opinion of the role of theology in the Christian life. It is not one that envisions the strict dichotomy between Church and everyday life, between religious actions and secular actions, it is one which combines them (like Christ did in the incarnation) and obviously does not represent your way of thought.

This line of thought isn't necessarily anti-American as much as it is anti-enlightenment and there is a challenge to the whole of the Christian West which has forgotten it's Christian character and formation. I would prefer the horrors of Christian warfare to that of secular and atheistic warfare which has killed more people in the 20th/21st century than all the wars of Christendom put together. (I actually admire the Crusades in part)

As to how one subordinates Christ to secular society, I have no real response. You can do that if you choose. It's not Christian though.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It displays extreme discomfort around gay people, which means he should not be in business serving wedding cakes to the public.

I'm kind of baffled here. He must make a cake against his will or he cannot do what he wants? Why must only Christians be subject to such a standard?

As to the legality of his opinion, won't that be decided at the court? I am curious. You have shown that you believe in the power of secular law. if the court did determine Jack Phillips had the right to refuse service would your entire argument fall apart?

 

[durangodawood]

The problem with your relating Jim Crow to this case is that the baker was willing to sell any of the cakes he had pre-made and were on display. What he was unwilling to do was craft a specific cake for this specific function or decorate it with symbols that indicated the union of two men.

The problem with demanding this of the cake maker is that we find no one is allowed to operate by their conscience or beliefs. Say there's a homosexual who owns a printing press that publishes books by self made authors. A man wants them to publish a book explaining why biblically and historically Homosexuality is wrong. Do you think the Homosexual must provide that service? Or is it a one way streak? I suspect you would defend the Printer but not the Baker yet the cases are the same in the level of repulsion each feels for the request being made of them.

I don't believe it is a fundamental right to be entitled to service, because it isn't.

No one claims theres an entitlement right to any service.

The claim is that everyone has an equal civil right of access to services offered in the public sphere. So, if you can afford it, you can buy it.

As for the cake decorator, this all comes down to the question of speech. Its pretty much settled that the printing industry is a speech industry, and so we cannot compel it in any way (with certain exceptions like IP or national security violations, etc). Is the cake decorator engaging in speech? I'm not sure. I think not, but I'm still open to persuasion.

 

[durangodawood]

...Why must only Christians be subject to such a standard?...

By the same token, a cake maker cannot discriminate against hetero weddings either.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ignatius, we Lutherans also do not see a strict separation between our faith and life. But at the same time, we do see a strict separation between church and state and between civil life and the formal means of grace. You are trying to conflate civil life and religion, which harkens back to the way primitive peoples think about their animistic beliefs. That's fine, but don't impose it on those of us who appreciate a well ordered society and recognize it for the blessing it is.

I'm kind of baffled here. He must make a cake against his will or he cannot do what he wants?

Nobody is forcing this baker to make a cake for the gay couple at all, ultimately. He does have free choices, and he has chosen something ugly and illegal. He does have duties as a human being to society, especially our laws. I can't believe you cannot grasp this, but perhaps you use your religious beliefs only to hide from modernity.

He is free to not bake cakes for gays, but he is not free to refuse to bake cakes for gays and yet choose to bake them for heterosexuals. That shows discrimination and animus that is not acceptable in Colorado or many other jursidictions in the US.

 

[trunks2k]

As for the cake decorator, this all comes down to the question of speech. Its pretty much settled that the printing industry is a speech industry, and so we cannot compel it in any way (with certain exceptions like IP or national security violations, etc). Is the cake decorator engaging in speech? I'm not sure. I think not, but I'm still open to persuasion.

IMO, it's a pretty simple test. "I make and sell widgets. I was asked to make this particular widget by X type of person. Would I be willing to make the exact same widget if the customer was a Y type of person?"

If the answer is "yes" then it's illegal discrimination to not sell make the widget for X assuming that the type is a protected class (i.e. race)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Ignatius, we Lutherans also do not see a strict separation between our faith and life. But at the same time, we do see a strict separation between church and state and between civil life and the formal means of grace. You are trying to conflate civil life and religion, which harkens back to the way primitive peoples think about their animistic beliefs. That's fine, but don't impose it on those of us who appreciate a well ordered society and recognize it for the blessing it is.

Again, you're making the argument that to refuse a service is to impose belief. How is that the case in this or any circumstance? I don't see the owner in refusing to something he cannot approve of, is forcing the Homosexuals to do something they don't want to do. It is just the opposite, the baker is being imposed upon by the state to cater to a service he cannot support from his personal beliefs. If you are going to characterise an argument, at least do so accurately. I am not imposing on anyone, I am merely advocating that there is no right to be serviced.

As to advocating primitivism. I suppose advocating an Apostolic standard of faith would be quite primitive, though it doesn't mean it's wrong. Some would say that the Apostolic practice of the faith should be our highest example. The Apostles didn't seperate their public lives from their religious lives and they didn't encourage others to do so either. If you are going to argue that the Apostles were religious ministers then I think you have missed one of Luther's main critiques of the Catholicism of his own day. Christianity and it's practice is incumbent on everyone, not just Monks or those devoted to the religious life. A vocation in the public arena doesn't mean giving up your Christian identity when you walk into it.

I see no basis for what you are saying in the Bible, church Fathers or even the reformers.

 

[durangodawood]

IMO, it's a pretty simple test. "I make and sell widgets. I was asked to make this particular widget by X type of person. Would I be willing to make the exact same widget if the customer was a Y type of person?"

If the answer is "yes" then it's illegal discrimination to not sell make the widget for X assuming that the type is a protected class (i.e. race)

So the cake decorator is within his rights, as he would not make a 2-man decoration on a cake for anyone, right?

BUT, if he was asked to custom-make a more generic cake for the gay wedding, he would have to, right?

 

[FireDragon76]

. I would prefer the horrors of Christian warfare

You would prefer people slaughtering each other in the sacred name of Jesus Christ? That doesn't seem right, and you know it. I can think of no good reason to kill in the name of Christ. Please, let's leave the darkness of this sort of mentality where it belongs, in the past.

to that of secular and atheistic warfare which has killed more people in the 20th/21st century than all the wars of Christendom put together. (I actually admire the Crusades in part)

And now you display your anti-secularist, anti-atheist animus as well. Is there no warmth in your heart for your fellow man?
Whatever happened to "Love your enemies"?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

By the same token, a cake maker cannot discriminate against hetero weddings either.

Well Jack Phillips obvious imbibes the Christian conception of marriage being between man and woman, which was until yesterday the universal way the rites and unions were understood in society.

Presumably he could discriminate against a hetero-sexual couple if they asked him to make a cake that had something he objected to. Say a Polygamous Trio came in and wanted a cake to symbolise their union. Say a Satanist couple came in and wanted a cake which was decorated with Satanic symbols. Say a transsexual man and transsexual woman come in and want a cake symbolising their union and their transitions. There are numerous possible circumstances I could imagine a heterosexual couple being denied. It's up to the baker to decide that though.

 

[trunks2k]

So the cake decorator is within his rights, as he would not make a 2-man decoration on a cake for anyone, right?

BUT, if he was asked to custom-make a more generic cake for the gay wedding, he would have to, right?

Exactly. This isn't an issue without precedence. In this particular case, they never got to the point of what the cake would look like.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You would prefer people slaughtering each other in the sacred name of Jesus? That doesn't seem right, and you know it.

And now you display your anti-secularist, anti-atheist animus as well. Is there no warmth in your heart for your fellow man?
Whatever happened to "Love your enemies"?

This strays significantly far from the topic. I will only clarify. I prefer the wars of Christianity to the wars of secular nations in the 21st century. It is not an endorsement of all wars done for such motives nor what was done in them.

 

[FireDragon76]

This strays significantly far from the topic. I will only clarify. I prefer the wars of Christianity to the wars of secular nations in the 21st century. It is not an endorsement of all wars done for such motives nor what was done in them.

I am no judge of history (whereas you may very well presume to be). So I just leave it at saying I am not in favor of any war.

Communism was a terrible thing but the Christians in Russia were part of the mess, because they supported a feudalistic system that did not uphold human dignity. It is understandable. Atheism had only a small part to play in that, and it's wrong to lash out at secularism for the failures of Christian. Blame Adam for eating the apple, not secularists.

Ignatius, I am trying to point out you need to broaden your perspective. At one time I had much the same attitude you do, contempt for western culture. But contempt is a horrible thing for any Christian to feed off, especially contempt for ones own culture. We should honor our mother and father, after all. That truly is the Orthodox thing to do, and Schmemann understood this. He did not preach contempt for western values as you do.