Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake

[TracerBullet]

I would NEVER write an obscenity on a cake and 'should' not be sued over that matter. Conscience IS protected under the law so these cases have caused harm that is unfair to one's values and faith. Such laws then, are unconstitutional. History will get this right or the Constitution will cease to function and our nation will no longer be under its guidelines. There is no way around it. We cannot undermine the structure of freedom and rights without the Constitution toppling.

and that is why no one has the special right to discriminate

 

[TracerBullet]

I don't fully get what you are getting at

But here's the bottom line for me: private industries should have the right to "discriminate" against what is morally repugnant to them. In other words, we have a right in this country to believe what we want. Being Black or Hispanic is not the same as being gay. No one can help what color he is but being gay is a choice, and an IMMORAL one. Being Black is not amoral, so why did this country once refuse them rights?

because we were wrong and amoral ourselves

But we repented.

We have no similar call to "repent" of hating sexual immorality and wanting to discourage it in our business practices and everywhere else



__

No one chooses their orientation. Discrimination is however always a choice

 

[Jose Fly]

Baking a cake in celebration of sin is a violation of certain religions, and refusal to do so is well within the parameters of exercising said religions.

By the same token, so is refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple.

Except they can't support their beliefs with actual Scripture.

According to them they can. Do you really want the courts ruling on what is or isn't scripturally supported?

Actually they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

No, that's a common myth.

 

[Jose Fly]

You would go to war over homosexuality?

In a heartbeat. I'm disappointed it hasn't already happen.

"You can just go somewhere else" is a failed legal argument.

Of all the idiot things I have read in life, this is at the top. Well done you fool. Karl Marx and Satan are proud.

This is what amazes me. All the complaining and whining about non-Christians here and watching over them like a hawk for the most minor of infractions.....

...yet fellow Christians posting this sort of visceral hatred is apparently just fine? No problems? :idunno:

 

[TracerBullet]

No more than a Christian baker declining to make a so called wedding cake for a same sex couple.

The Christian can dial another baker and so can the same sex couple.

and the African American can walk by the restaurant with the "white only" sign and go to a different restaurant. But why should he have to?

The problem that the videos illustrate are the hypocrisy of the homosexual agenda and the injustices of the judiciary which has absolutely disregarded the first amendment when it comes to the freedom of religion of conservative Christians who hold the bible as innerant and authoritative.

and you post illustrates the hypocrisy of the anti-gay agenda which disregards the 14th amendment stating that everyone (even minorities that you don't happen to like) are equal in the eyes of the law and no one has the special right to discriminate.

Its pretty simple. The bible says that homosexuality is a sin. The bible also says not to participate in sin or give one's approval to sin and furthermore the bible says "take no part in unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them."

it also says that eating shrimp is a sin.

 

[TracerBullet]

Yep, so we are going to continue t-it for tat all day, because I believe that homosexuality is immoral and you don't. Either it gets settled through legislation or another civil war. The latter is most likely.

why should your choice to hate trump others rights to be treated equally?

 

[rexlunae]

Yep, so we are going to continue t-it for tat all day, because I believe that homosexuality is immoral and you don't. Either it gets settled through legislation or another civil war. The latter is most likely.

Wow, overreact much? Gay people getting married??? WAR!!!

There's not going to be a war. Your side is going to lose, and you're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.

 

[rexlunae]

Actually they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

You can reserve the right all you like, it doesn't authorize you to break the law.

 

[Lighthouse]

Any business, organization, or individual should not only be free to discriminate against bigots, Christian or otherwise, but it is the right thing to do. The behavior does not deserve equal rights, but equal justice with those who commit murder, child molestation, adultery, rape, etc.

The entertainment industry and the depraved media might have the biggest voice in this fight, and weak-minded people might believe their false claims about gays and follow them like lemmings, but bigoted behavior will always be abhorrent, immoral and unworthy of acceptance in a civilized society.

Any business, organization, or individual should not only be free to discriminate against homosexuals, but it is the right thing to do. The behavior does not deserve equal rights, but equal justice with those who commit murder, child molestation, adultery, rape, etc.

Do you agree with that sentiment Traci?

By the same token, so is refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple.

Which religion?

According to them they can. Do you really want the courts ruling on what is or isn't scripturally supported?

Is it in the Bible or is it not? It's pretty simple. Of course, the courts can't seem to understand the Constitution, so there is that.

No, that's a common myth.

Can you back that assertion up?

No one chooses their orientation.

Can you prove this?

and the African American can walk by the restaurant with the "white only" sign and go to a different restaurant. But why should he have to?

Why would he want to go anywhere else?

and you post illustrates the hypocrisy of the anti-gay agenda which disregards the 14th amendment stating that everyone (even minorities that you don't happen to like) are equal in the eyes of the law and no one has the special right to discriminate.

That's assuming homosexuality is as natural as skin, hair, eye, etc. color.

it also says that eating shrimp is a sin.

Acts 10

You can reserve the right all you like, it doesn't authorize you to break the law.

That right is the law.

 

[Doom]

why should your choice to hate trump others rights to be treated equally?

Nothing to do with hate. It has to do with homosexuals being no different than child molesters, rapists, murderers, adulterers, etc. To not treat them the same as any other abhorrent criminals is an injustice to society. Allowing homosexuality to be celebrated is no different than give hearty approval to abortion.

 

[Doom]

No one chooses their orientation.

That's a lie. That's like saying no one chooses to be a murderer.

 

[Doom]

Wow, overreact much? Gay people getting married??? WAR!!!

There's not going to be a war. Your side is going to lose, and you're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.

We shall see, won't we?

 

[jeremysdemo]

Wow, overreact much? Gay people getting married??? WAR!!!

There's not going to be a war. Your side is going to lose, and you're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.

Bingo.

he has every right to hatemonger as the gays have the right to marriage.

but once again, just because we can use a "right" to do or not do something does not always mean we should.

That is what all this comes down to in the end.

Do I feel the Christian bakers would have compromised their faith to make a cake that would be used for a gay wedding? No. no more so than a Muslim or Buddhist wedding. THEY were clearly fearful it would or wanted to exercise that 'right'.

We've had Muslim and Buddhist weddings in the US long before we had gay marriages....decades in fact.

if it was really a "religious right" issue it would have been settled legally...there is something more at play here, this is a 'new' right of a group purposefully being put to the test on both sides and it's getting ugly real quick. :box:

 

[Doom]

he has every right to hatemonger

Says the self-professed Nazi who wants imperfect babies murdered.

 

[Nick M]

No one chooses their orientation.

No kidding. The male delivering the y chromosome does.

 

[Dialogos]

The Christian baker isn't infringing on anyone's ability to exercise their religion.

Exactly right, which is why they should not be civilly penalized for refusing to bake a cake for a religious ceremony that they rightly find repugnant.

"You can just go somewhere else" is a failed legal argument.

What is legal and what is rational are often not synonymous.

It may not be a compelling legal argument in a season in our country where we no longer value the freedom of religion but it is nevertheless a completely rational argument.

They can go somewhere else and in reality the reason they went to the conservative Christian baker is because they wanted to punish the baker for his religious views and wanted to use the punitive authority of the state to do it.

So basically you're saying Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gays in any business practices and public accommodation.

:doh:

Talk about your straw man arguments.

No, I'm saying that Christians should not be forced to participate or contribute to a religious ceremony that they find morally repugant.

I don't think it is rational or moral to penalize a Muslim for refusing to serve beer in his restaurant, I don't think it is rational or moral to penalize a Jewish deli for refusing to serve bacon lettuce and tomato sandwiches and I don't think it is rational or moral to penalize a Christian baker for refusing to bake a cake for a religious ceremony he finds morally repugnant or penalizing a Christian t-shirt maker for refusing to print t-shirts for the gay pride parade which he finds morally and religiously objectionable. Nor would I advocate penalizing a Jehovah's witness t-shirt shop for refusing to print a t-shirt that says "Jesus is God" or a Jewish baker for refusing to make a "Jesus is the reason for the season" cake.

The abridgment of the "free exercise thereof" should not be either positive or negative. One should not be prevented from worshiping according to their own conscience nor should someone be compelled to participate in anything that violates their faith.

Do we extend this same exemption to Christians who hold racist views based on how they read the Bible?

See, Jose, the reason why this argument is a total failure is because those who use it refuse to acknowledge that race and sexual behavior aren't synonymous.

 

[jeremysdemo]

No, I'm saying that Christians should not be forced to participate or contribute to a religious ceremony that they find morally repugant.

Again making a cake for sale is not "participating" or "contributing" to a religious ceremony, it is providing a service to the public.

this whole thing is less about that and more about putting egg on someone face because we have the 'right' to do so.

Christians in the US have been making cakes for people of various other faiths for decades and this "issue" had yet to come up....so that whole argument that their faith is somehow compromised for "contributing" is mute for all this time or that they needed or just had to exercise that 'right'.

See what this is REALLY about?

 

[Jedidiah]

Then anti-discrimination law violates the First Amendment, when it forbids a Christian from abstaining from participating in the promulgation of views directly opposed to their Christian faith. It's emperor worship in sheep's clothing.

Nope. The First Amendment prohibits the gov't from impeding the free exercise of religion. Baking cakes is not exercising one's religion...

Never said it was. Law that requires Christians to craft symbols representative of forces working actively against the Christian faith is bad law. Emperor worship, thinly veiled.

...If you want to go that route, then racist groups have an even stronger case. Many of them base their racism on the Bible. If we were to apply your above argument to them, the racists could open a business and refuse to serve anyone but white Christians.

Obviously that's not the case, so it's a failed legal argument...

That's not a good analogy. Try this one. A Christian baker is asked by belligerent LGBTQ/rainbow coalition people to bake a wedding cake with two grooms/brides, a clear symbol of anti-Christianity, and they aren't forced by bad law to do it.

I fail to see how it is a crime to refuse to participate in the promulgation of views directly opposed to the Christian faith. Perhaps you can lay it out for me ?

...Again it's pretty simple. Many state and local gov'ts have anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discriminatory business practices based on a number of categories (race, religion, sex, sexual orientation). Any for-profit business that is open to the public must abide by those laws.

Thus, a business owner can't refuse to hire someone because they're gay, black, or Jewish. Similarly, a business can't refuse service to members of the public for the same reasons.

A Jewish baker oughtn't be forced by any law to craft a wedding cake as a black swastika on a white circle on a crimson background. That's all I'm saying. Don't we agree ?

 

[Jedidiah]

...it's no more necessary for a Christian baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay marriage (within reason, all special writings and characters aside)....

The whole thrust of my presence ITT has been to say that two grooms/brides on a wedding cake constitute things unreasonable, symbols that we could loosely describe as "...special writings and characters...."

 

[Jedidiah]

No one chooses their orientation....

Fatalism.