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

[TracerBullet]

The natural attraction of all males is to females, and the natural attraction of all females is to males.

it is perfectly natural - for hetersexuals

 

[TracerBullet]

When it crosses the church/state line, it is against the Constitution. This law was made to protect people from Government abuse, not government from church, or else you couldn't be a Christian politician. That makes no sense and is exactly backwards from the Constitution.

you need to go read the constitution

Of course we are in a backwards era now, where wrong is right. That pendulum has to swing back. Our country cannot sustain the extreme, morally or financially. The backbone of American liberty is and always will be families. No other group produces the next generation but them. Both the morals AND economics demands the pendulum swing back. We cannot sustain this. It can't be done.

and what of the millions of families headed by same gendered couples?

 

[Jose Fly]

Baking a wedding cake for gays would require the baker to violate his conscience on one of the longest held doctrines of the Christian faith.
Do you want proof about the doctrine?
Here is what Jesus said about marriage:

Mark 10:6-9 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.​

You did notice that Jesus specifically said male and female, right?

How dishonest of you. You deliberately eliminated the actual question he was responding to: "The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”"

So he was speaking about divorce, not about gays. This is why your side keeps losing in court. You can't make an honest, objective argument for why you should be granted special privileges.

Why don't people have a say in whether a person's strongly held religious beliefs are right when they don't have the same beliefs?
Because they don't have the same beliefs, of course.

You missed the point. If you're going to claim that something is an essential aspect of Christianity, then we need to take into consideration whether that's true for all Christians, or just a subset of them. And the latter is reality.

Wrong, again.
He is only wanting to be able to practice his religion in peace, which your buddies want to prevent him from doing.
He is not refusing them service except for the one thing that would cause him to violate his strongly held religious beliefs.
You are asking for an exception to the law that permits him to practice his religion, which is you demanding special rights.

Those are your opinions. The law and larger society disagrees.

 

[OCTOBER23]

BAKERIES ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES AND HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

TO REFUSE TO MAKE A CAKE FOR THOSE ABOMINAL GAYS.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,

both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;

their blood shall be upon them.

 

[genuineoriginal]

How dishonest of you. You deliberately eliminated the actual question he was responding to: "The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”"

I didn't post the questions of the Pharisees because it had no relevance to the discussion.
You are a fool if you can't see that.

So he was speaking about divorce, not about gays.

He was speaking of marriage and what He said about marriage can never apply to gays.

You can't make an honest, objective argument for why you should be granted special privileges.

Considering that the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, that this has been the definition in every culture since the beginning of recorded history, and you are wanting the special privilege of changing that definition, you will always be in the wrong.

You missed the point. If you're going to claim that something is an essential aspect of Christianity, then we need to take into consideration whether that's true for all Christians

Now you are trying to change the legal standards used to determine whether a belief is a strongly held religious belief?
You keep asking for more and more special privileges for your perversions.

 

[republicanchick]

In this case I would disagree. I think it is necessary for the Christians to publicly point out the double standard and even go to court over it. If it is "illegal" for a Christian to refuse service to a gay couple for personal convictions then it is equally "illegal" for a Homosexual to refuse to serve Christians for the same reason.

This is what irritates me so much about "social injustice" real or perceived. If I say I am against gay marriage then people say they are offended by that and I lose my right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to somebody. Will, what about the offense I feel when people are saying that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable. I find that offensive yet it is perfectly acceptable to ignore my offense and protect others from being offended. It is a double standard that should not be allowed to exist. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees freedom from offense.

wow, I really appreciate this. Some of it, well, you would think it would just kinda go without saying. But in this world.. apparently not

 

[republicanchick]

BAKERIES ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES AND HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

TO REFUSE TO MAKE A CAKE FOR THOSE ABOMINAL GAYS.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,

both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;

their blood shall be upon them.

THANK YOU

nice to hear from the Good (but often considered obsolete) Book

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't post the questions of the Pharisees because it had no relevance to the discussion.

Exactly. He wasn't asked about gays, cakes, or who can or can't get married. He was asked about divorce.

He was speaking of marriage and what He said about marriage can never apply to gays.

Not one word in there about gays not being able to marry, nor about Christians making cake.

Considering that the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, that this has been the definition in every culture since the beginning of recorded history, and you are wanting the special privilege of changing that definition, you will always be in the wrong.

That's your opinion, but current law says otherwise.

Now you are trying to change the legal standards used to determine whether a belief is a strongly held religious belief?

You moved the goalposts. No one is disputing that fundamentalists have strong beliefs about this, just as no one disputes that some Christians have strong beliefs about race mixing.

The question is, are those beliefs such an essential part of Christianity that serving interracial or gay couples equates to preventing Christians from practicing their religion? So far, the answer from the government is, no.

You keep asking for more and more special privileges for your perversions.

I'm not gay. And all they're asking for is to be served at public businesses just like everyone else.

You're the one demanding a special exemption from the law.

 

[Dialogos]

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

To the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

You said:

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

I replied that I agreed. Perhaps you meant something other than what you said, in which case, you aren't making much sense.

The fact remains, in many localities, businesses open to the public cannot refuse service based on a customer's sexual orientation.

And in many of the cases, those business were not refusing service based on the couple's sexual orientation but based on their own deeply held religious convictions. The Christian baker in Denver CO does not refuse to bake birthday cakes for people he may suspect are gay, he simply finds so called gay weddings to be morally objectionable events and did not want to lend his talents toward that event.

The Christian T-shirt designer did not refuse to sell t-shirts to homosexuals he refused to design a t-shirt for a gay pride event that offended his conscience.

That's the law.

Right, and laws in this country have been proven to be both unjust and unconstitutional in the past.

If you don't like it, try and change it.

I do.

But even if I can't, I will continue to stand up and call it what it is, a violation of the First Amendment.

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant to the legal question at hand. The bakery, being a for-profit business open to the public, cannot deny service to customers based on their sexual orientation.

They don't.

They should be able to refuse to lend their talent toward religious observances they find objectionable.

No one's forcing them to. If they don't want to ever be faced with the prospect of baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, then they shouldn't open a bakery in an area where sexual orientation is protected class in the relevant anti-discrimination laws.

Run your line of reasoning through other examples.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a bacon loving Baptist a BLT or close up shop because there are Baptists in the area and they want thier bacon?

Does a Muslim bakery have the obligation to make a "Mohammad was a moron" cake because there are pro-Israel Jews in the neighborhood and they think the so call prophet was a nut job?

Does a Jehovah's witness T-shirt designer have the obligation to print "Jesus is God" t-shirts or fold up shop because they live in an area where evangelical Christians like to wear t-shirts?

Not if the first amendment means anything.

I happen to love bacon, I am certain that Muhammad was a moron, and would be willing to die to defend the truth that Jesus is God, but that doesn't give me the right to use coercive means to impose my ideology on them and pry them from their own convictions using the state as the crow-bar.

The civil penalties that bible believing Christians are facing for refusing to pay homage to the homosexual agenda are illustrative of the stranglehold the far left has on our country's judiciary and these video's illustrate the abject hypocrisy of it all.

See Dialogos, this is why your side keeps losing in court. No one is saying race and sexual orientation are synonymous. The point is, the legal principles are the same. Just as a Christian baker who believes the Bible teaches separation of the races cannot deny an interracial couple his services, a Christian baker who believes the Bible teaches opposite-sex marriage only cannot deny a same-sex couple his services.

The legal principles are based on faulty comparisons. You keep appealing to law as if the law determines what is right and wrong. When the law gets it right, it reflects what is right and wrong, it does not create right and wrong. And in this case, the law has it wrong.

I realize that the legal principle is that race and sexual orientation should both be treated as a protected class. This "legal principle" is not yet recognized at the federal level and only a few states see sexual orientation as a protected class so your "but its the law" argument is a bit hasty yet.

But beyond that, none of these examples are about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the first place, they are about penalizing business men and women for conducting business in a way that is harmonious with their moral beliefs. The Christian baker doesn't have a blanket policy of refusing to sell pastries to homosexuals. He doesn't ask someone looking for a birthday cake if the birthday boy or girl is gay, he just sells them the cake. The Christian baker refused to make a specific cake for a religious ceremony he finds morally objectionable. The baker isn't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, he is discriminating on the basis of his moral belief about the event.

The Christian T-Shirt designer doesn't refuse to design T-shirts to patrons he suspects are gay. He refused to design a T-shirt for a particular event he found to be immoral. The T-shirt guy isn't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, he is discriminating on the basis of ideology.

And if we are no longer able to conduct our lives and our businesses in accordance with our own ideological and religious convictions and are now required to pay lip service to causes we don't believe in then the words "freedom of speech" have lost all meaning in this country.

Its not about refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation, its about penalizing someone for conducting business in accordance with their beliefs. Its about punishing someone until they "get with the program."

Jose, you don't get to say you haven't been warned.

It may be all well and good when the freedoms that are being curtailed are the ones you'd rather see curtailed anyway but when they start curtailing your freedom, you will get what is coming to you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Exactly. He wasn't asked about gays, cakes, or who can or can't get married. He was asked about divorce.

Jesus was asked about divorce and responded with an explanation about what marriage is.
I posted Jesus' explanation about what marriage is, since that was the part that is relevant.
Your unbelief has no bearing on the fact that the words of Jesus on what marriage is has been the basis for one of the longest existing doctrines of Christian faith.

You moved the goalposts. No one is disputing that fundamentalists have strong beliefs about this

I didn't move the goalposts.
The protection of individual's right to act according to their strongly held religious beliefs without government intervention is one of the first things written into the Bill of Rights.
You have attempted to move those goalposts to force people to violate their strongly held religious beliefs in order to support your sexual perversions, or lose their businesses.

The question is, are those beliefs such an essential part of Christianity that serving interracial or gay couples equates to preventing Christians from practicing their religion? So far, the answer from the government is, no.

That is the wrong question.
The correct legal questions are:

• whether there is a compelling governmental interest for a law
• whether the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest
• whether the law is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

Unlike laws that deal with a liberty interest instead of a fundamental right, the burden of proof falls on the state to prove their law meets these standards.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Goose/gander. If you hold yourself out as a public business making cakes or cookies then you can't discriminate. If you do then you open yourself for a lawsuit. That said, I'd say there is a difference between seeking a cake for a gay or traditional ceremony and going a step further, which is what is being done here or could be done on the other side of it, UNLESS the baker in question offers private messages on their product as a part of their regular business practice.

I can't help but come to the conclusion after reading your post that you believe that the absolutely filthy disease ridden behavior known as homosexuality is the equivalent to what God designed for human sexuality: one man and one woman united in marriage.

Surely I must have misread your post because I can't imagine anyone that identifies themself as a Christian making that comparison.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The problem is obvious. Gay bakers don't see a problem with making a heterosexual wedding cake, but some non-gay bakers see a problem with making a wedding cake with two grooms or two brides.

"Non gay bakers"? Don't be afraid to say "Christian", as in "Christian bakers who believe in God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture believe that it's wrong to mock His institution of marriage."

So it's really difficult to pull a goose/gander thing, unless one adds something. Hence, this guy asks for a statement as well as the wedding cake.

It all comes around to a single moral question. "Do we have a moral responsibility to make other people be good?"

No one can "make" other people be good (through righteous laws we punish them when they're bad, which in turn helps them turn from their wrongful ways).

A Christian will "show" those morally confused souls that proudly engage in homosexual behavior that there is a better way.

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
John 14:6

 

[jeremysdemo]

The Christian baker in Denver CO does not refuse to bake birthday cakes for people he may suspect are gay, he simply finds so called gay weddings to be morally objectionable events and did not want to lend his talents toward that event.

so now it's about 'lending ones talents' aptly said.

Simple solution really, bake the gays the simplest plane jane box cake possible!

if they don't want a cake without this particular 'talent' added to it, they can go elsewhere! lol

 

[aCultureWarrior]

so now it's about 'lending ones talents' aptly said.

Simple solution really, bake the gays the simplest plane jane box cake possible!

if they don't want a cake without this particular 'talent' added to it, they can go elsewhere! lol

As a pagan you obviously can't relate to a Christian's perspective on the matter, but it comes down to this:

The Christian baker would be providing a service to an immoral cause by baking a cake for the people who engage in homosexual behavior that requested it.

 

[TracerBullet]

How dishonest of you. You deliberately eliminated the actual question he was responding to: "The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”"

So he was speaking about divorce, not about gays. This is why your side keeps losing in court. You can't make an honest, objective argument for why you should be granted special privileges.

Bingo

 

[TracerBullet]

BAKERIES ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES AND HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

TO REFUSE TO MAKE A CAKE FOR THOSE ABOMINAL GAYS.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,

both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;

their blood shall be upon them.

Do you personally follow all the laws of Leviticus or do you just cherry pick them?

 

[TracerBullet]

Considering that the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, that this has been the definition in every culture since the beginning of recorded history, and you are wanting the special privilege of changing that definition, you will always be in the wrong.

except for all the cultures where the definition of marriage is polygamous, or incestuous or same gendered

 

[TracerBullet]

This is what irritates me so much about "social injustice" real or perceived. If I say I am against gay marriage then people say they are offended by that and I lose my right to freedom of expression because it is offensive to somebody. Will, what about the offense I feel when people are saying that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable. I find that offensive yet it is perfectly acceptable to ignore my offense and protect others from being offended. It is a double standard that should not be allowed to exist. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees freedom from offense.

You don't loose your freedom of expression (you just freely expressed yourself here) What you want is freedom from the consequences of what you express. Everything we express has consequences and it's part of being an adult to accept those consequences.

You are, for example free to express your belief that people with dark skin are social inferiors ruled by their perverted sexual drives (this example is for illustrative purposes only) Saying such a thing will have consequences, in modern society those consequences will be somewhat negative. You are free to say this all you want, but you have to face the consequences of saying something this horrible.

 

[TracerBullet]

Its not about refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation, its about penalizing someone for conducting business in accordance with their beliefs. Its about punishing someone until they "get with the program."

just like what happened to all those nice Christian business owners in the deep south when their freedoms were abridged by the end of segregation.

Jose, you don't get to say you haven't been warned.

It may be all well and good when the freedoms that are being curtailed are the ones you'd rather see curtailed anyway but when they start curtailing your freedom, you will get what is coming to you.

you complain of your freedoms being curtailed while defending the denial of freedoms to an entire minority

 

[genuineoriginal]

except for all the cultures where the definition of marriage is polygamous, or incestuous

Even in those cultures the definition of a marriage is a man and a woman.

or same gendered

Not even Rome or Greece in their most hedonistic times defined marriage as same gendered.

You are delusional