• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Wedding participation

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by Interplanner, Mar 31, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Interplanner

    Interplanner Newbie

    +97
    Non-Denom
    Single
    In wedding preparations in general, is doing a cake for a couple considered an inside, personal, validating participation with a couple?

    If you believe, from Mt 19, that there are remarriages that are actually adultery, and you are cakemaker, and you know a couple is violating Mt 19 because you knew both of them in previous situations, and you do a cake for them, I can see where that approaches a contradiction.

    But if you don't know the circumstances, and don't know them at all, and they request a cake, I don't know that that is validating something you disapprove of.

    In the Kennewick, WA, case, I think the baker knew the homosexual couple quite well and had told them she would not validate their marriage in other ways than just not baking for them. I recall they respected that, because they did not pursue her; it was the unprecedented act of the AG pursuing her.

    I would still like to hear on wedding prep in general: which functions are close, intimate validation? Certainly the pastor and best people are. If the pastor asks for "any objections" then all the audience is.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,513
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    I have never attended a wedding where the cake was part of the ceremony. At every wedding that I have attended, the cake was severed at a reception that followed the wedding.

    It would seem to me that a baker might have reason to object to preparing communion bread that would be used during the wedding ceremony, since that would actually endorse the marriage. However, a baker has no reason to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, because that is not part of the wedding ceremony.
     
  3. Interplanner

    Interplanner Newbie

    +97
    Non-Denom
    Single
    so what i dont understand is that the real problem is not addressed. Bible-based Christians have Biblical solid reasons for not validating the entire ceremony. I don't know why this issue is gravitating toward cakemaking.

    In what Archivist said above, it sounds as though the ceremony is Biblically approved. It may be legal in certain places, but this distinction wasn't made. There is no basis at all in Scripture for approving it.
     
  4. Paulos23

    Paulos23 Never tell me the odds!

    +2,658
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Part of the problem is that people see everything being done for a wedding as part of a wedding. The reception is after the wedding, but everyone thinks of it as part of the wedding even though it is not part of the cerimony.
     
  5. Jade Margery

    Jade Margery Stranger in a strange land

    +282
    Agnostic
    In Relationship
    It is all discrimination, and hinges on the rather simple question - do people and businesses have the right to discriminate against customers for reasons that do not affect their ability to conduct business? (For instance, it would not be unreasonable to deny service to someone who has made late payments in the past or who returned rented objects with damage, but a person's skin color or sexual orientation does not affect their ability to pay for goods.)

    I think a good argument can be made that, regardless of whether it is destructive to society or not, an individual owning a private business should have the right to deny service to whoever they want. Black or white, male or female, gay or straight, muslim or jew or buddhist or christian or atheist, it doesn't matter who is being discriminated against, all should be allowed.

    It's not an argument I agree with, but I think it can be made.

    So I will ask those in favor of these 'religious rights' - would it be okay for the baker to refuse service to an interracial couple? How about a christian couple?

    If you say yes to both, then by all means argue onward. But, if your endorsement of discrimination extends only to the prejudices you yourself hold, then I call hypocrisy.

    Personally, I'm all in favor of people being able to discriminate against whom they offer service to... so long as that information is clearly stated in a visible way before entering their premises or using their website. After all, I would hate to accidentally validate their bigotry with my business. Fair's fair.
     
  6. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +16,474
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Clear enough?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  7. mafwons

    mafwons Hi guys

    +132
    Non-Denom
    Said baker should be able to refuse anyone on any grounds, period.
     
  8. mafwons

    mafwons Hi guys

    +132
    Non-Denom
    The argument is stupid but valid. Discrimination should not be discriminaywd against, the market will punish bad actors to the degree warranted by the discrimination. This running to the courts and whining is a waste of time and resources. Gay bakers should have a heyday with all the customers they can get now, would you not do business with someone who supports your race, lifestyle etc. than someone who does not.
     
  9. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +16,474
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    See post # 6.
     
  10. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,513
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    So a gas station owner in a remote location should be able to refuse to sell you gas for your automobile if you are Lutheran or if you are female or if you are black or if have red hair, or if you're under 5'6" or if you have blue eyes, even if it means that you will run out of gas in the middle of nowhere?

    Why do I have issues with that?
     
  11. Cearbhall

    Cearbhall Well-Known Member

    +5,663
    United States
    Other Religion
    Single
    No. You outsource the job of baking the cake because bakers are better at it. Same with the flowers, dress, invitations, etc. I don't plan to invite those strangers to be part of my wedding, so the idea that they would think their opinion on it should matter is amusing. Just do your job, bakers.
     
  12. mafwons

    mafwons Hi guys

    +132
    Non-Denom
    Because you don't like it.
     
  13. Interplanner

    Interplanner Newbie

    +97
    Non-Denom
    Single
    archivist,
    all your comparisons break down badly with the SS couple weddings I know of. It was not the "orientation" of the couple but the event. All your examples are determinist. This question is about an event. I don't know any married couples who say the wedding is (now) the single determinative factor of their identity.

    But my question here is how much close participation is cake-baking? In the Kennewick, WA, case, I don't see where the couple thought it was very close; it was the dictatorial action of the AG to pursue the cake-baker, though. Someone must have heard the story 2nd-hand and without context and charged after her to target her. And then, as you may know, the punishment turned out so small as to be worthless. There are cases where the whole business has failed, not due to fines so much as the ripple effect of intimidation.

    So I propose we start an anti-intimidation movement to answer the way the anti-discrimination people behave.
     
  14. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,513
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    No, it isn't a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It is because individuals have chosen to engage in a public business. Having done so they need to provide service to the public at large without discriminating against anyone.

    If they want to establish their business as a private club then they can limit their customer base.
     
  15. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,513
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    But, as I clearly said, a wedding cake is not served at a wedding. It is served at a reception, a seperate event that follows a wedding.

    And, again, the cake is not part of the wedding ceremony.

    You do need to get your facts straight. The case in Kennewick, Washington involved a florist not a baker. The actions of the AG were hardly "dictatorial" in the case--the AG was simply enforcing the law.

    And exactly how would you go about doing this?
     
  16. Interplanner

    Interplanner Newbie

    +97
    Non-Denom
    Single
    The question is still the event, not the person. Your examples are all the person. No person is to be put in a fixed category, but sexual orientation does that 24-7.

    An attorney general is for presiding over cases that rise up on appeal. There never was a case.

    In final analysis, we have a case where the flower shop owner believes the flower decoration service would be part of the event in question. I don't want the state telling her what is and is not part of such an event. That's the issue that should be the debate this week, although it wouldn't matter if the event itself was not an abomination.

    Just for illustration, in the highest level of club soccer in Europe (Champions League), the captains are sometimes given bouquets before the matches. The people who give them are honoring their achievement; they validate or participate by the tribute. The flowers are not given by people who hate soccer (for ex. American football fans) or who hate that team (for ex. bitter rivals at the same level). We do not expect the admin of CL (UEFA) to force soccer haters to provide flowers, or force rival teams to provide flowers.

    So the woman in Kennewick, understandably, cannot detach providing her artistry to this event. The event is an abomination. The people are not, because people are not in your categories to her.
     
  17. Interplanner

    Interplanner Newbie

    +97
    Non-Denom
    Single
    btw, the petitions would be the same as usual. Haven't you ever seen people at coffee shops or WalMarts, seeking signatures? Also the POs?

    Best if done at the state level probably: "No group shall intimidate those in opposition to it's faith or sexual beliefs." It's redundant really, it's just that the Left does not realize it does it 24-7 through its "trinity." No, no, only conservatives could intimidate.

    At UC Davis, the U is telling the Christian students that they have to have non-Christians in their leadership committee. Or disband. Right, and next we'll make sure all fish have bicycles.
     
  18. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +9,893
    Atheist
    Private
    The orientation of the couple is the only thing which differentiates a same sex marriage from an opposite sex one. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews and all that.
     
  19. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,513
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    You will have to clarify your exact meaning here. I'm not sure of your exact meaning.

    No, the duty of the Washington State Attorney General is enforce the laws of the state of Washington. Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. The Attorney General was doing his job and enforcing the law

    In your earlier post you claimed that the individual was a baker. You seem to be very confused.

    But under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, if a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.

    Your example has nothing to do with the Washington case. The florist was holding herself out as a public business. The couple was attempting to purchase flowers at the same price that would be given to any opposite-sex couple. No one was trying to force anyone to give away anything.

    She is holding herself out as a public business. She must provide service to the public.

    Apparently in her opinion and in your opinion. Others would disagree.

    What categories? I don't believe that I have tried to set up any categories in this thread. I did provide several examples, but not a list of categories.
     
  20. Archivist

    Archivist Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,513
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Republican
    So asking for the same services that are provided to others in intimidation. Right.

    At UC Davis, the U is telling the Christian students that they have to have non-Christians in their leadership committee. Or disband. Right, and next we'll make sure all fish have bicycles.[/QUOTE]

    You are aware that UC Davis changed its policy. In any event that isn't what we are discussing here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...