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

[rexlunae]

Not only that, I have no problem with not getting a cake because my eyes are brown.

How many times has that actually happened to you, over the course of your lifetime?

I can go across the street and, being as I'm buying a cake, the exercise might do me some good.

What if they say the same thing?

Or, I could get a blue eye to go buy me one, if they are that good.

How often do you ask your friends to run your errands for you. And what do you do if you don't know any blue-eyed people who are willing to do that favor for you?

I've only had one cake in my life, that I would do that for, else I'd go someplace else, and happily. If they were the only place in town, I'd save a few bucks and bake my own.

Yes, I'm sure you'd be just tickled. I really believe you, and I'm not being even a little bit sarcastic...

How can we be so sue-happy as a nation, when the answers are literally, this simple? :idunno:

Suing is like saying "I don't know what to do!" Nobody is that inept (at least in my naïve world).

No, it's like saying "I'm a person, just like everyone else, and I deserve to be treated like one."

 

[Rusha]

No, it's like saying "I'm a person, just like everyone else, and I deserve to be treated like one."

This, I believe is exactly what it comes down to ... which is a secondary reason why I am against these types of laws.

Part of life ... is being treated like garbage by a stranger/employer/co-worker/family member/friend, etc.

These laws are about hurt feelings ... someone feels they didn't get treated with courtesy and respect.

So what. It happens. Then it also leaves someone telling a complete stranger what they think and feel (aka the thought police).

People who push these type of laws come off looking like crybabies ... and in the case above, hypocrites.

While you can bully someone into making a cake, I wonder how much satisfaction and joy it brings when the big event is overshadowed by knowing that special cake is layered with animosity.

 

[Dialogos]

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.

Just because you want to make that analogy doesn't make it a valid analogy.

Do you want to know why that analogy is invalid?

1. Race and sexual behavior are completely different.
Being born African American is not a choice, getting married to someone the bible says you shouldn't is a choice.
2. The bible affirms the equality of races and it condemns homosexual practice.
3. The business owners in the south wanted to exclude people on the basis of race, the Christian baker wanted to refuse service on the basis of his conscientious observance of his faith.
4. The right analogy would be a kkk member asking an African American baker to bake a cake that says, "White Power!" Or telling a Jewish Baker that he must bake a cake that says, "Merry Christmas" or telling a Musilm baker that he must bake a "happy Hannukah" cake or telling a gay friendly baker to bake a "Gay marriage is wrong" cake.

Does the bakers in any of these examples have the right to refuse service on the basis of their deeply help ideological beliefs?

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

The freedom to what? The freedom to demand that anyone and everyone celebrate your union?

Why do you assume that "minorities" have rights and everyone else just has responsibilities?

I'm not stopping any two perverts from having a pretend wedding (calling it a wedding is really a lie, God doesn't join two men or two women in holy matrimony).

I'm just not willing to participate. Nor am I willing to pay lip service to something I find deeply offensive.

 

[Town Heretic]

Just because you want to make that analogy doesn't make it a valid analogy

True enough.

Do you want to know why that analogy is invalid?

1. Race and sexual behavior are completely different.

So is religion, but it doesn't have to be the same, the response to it does.

Being born African American is not a choice, getting married to someone the bible says you shouldn't is a choice.

Leaving off this isn't a theocracy, your religion is a choice, but I doubt you'd be okay with a "No Vacancy for Jews" sign. Right?

2. The bible affirms the equality of races and it condemns homosexual practice.

Many people used the Bible to affirm the opposite of equality, but you still have the theocracy problem.

3. The business owners in the south wanted to exclude people on the basis of race, the Christian baker wanted to refuse service on the basis of his conscientious observance of his faith.

Many, many people (and not only Southerners, you should look into race riots north and west) in the South and likely elsewhere believed blacks had the mark of Cain and their prejudice was rooted in their understanding of their faith.

4. The right analogy would be a kkk member asking an African American baker to bake a cake that says, "White Power!" Or telling a Jewish Baker that he must bake a cake that says, "Merry Christmas" or telling a Musilm baker that he must bake a "happy Hannukah" cake or telling a gay friendly baker to bake a "Gay marriage is wrong" cake.

The problem with this sweeping a generalization is that not all words and positions are of equal weight. When you approach what might be advanced as provocation/fighting words as a matter of law you've moved into a different realm and away from something as simple as a Muslim baker not wanting to provide the same cake to a Christian ceremony.

Does the bakers in any of these examples have the right to refuse service on the basis of their deeply help ideological beliefs?

No. They're entitled to believe, not to discriminate. So you can be utterly sure that every other faith is a pathway to hell, but that doesn't mean you get to put a "Christians Only" on the billboard of your hotel.

The freedom to what? The freedom to demand that anyone and everyone celebrate your union?

Selling a cake you're in the business of selling isn't a holy or unholy endeavor. It's commerce. You're no more participating than the man who sold Marx a pen participated in the communist revolution in Russia.

 

[bybee]

"Designed by nature" rarely produces a single function, and never defines the morally acceptable uses. The human fist, for example, is unique not only for the opposable thumb that allow the grasping of weapons, but also in the buttressed structure it gives for punching, so these are both acceptable uses for hands?

Moral arguments from claimed natural function are weak arguments.

Actually, I didn't claim it as a moral argument. I claim it as a statement of fact.

 

[rexlunae]

This, I believe is exactly what it comes down to ... which is a secondary reason why I am against these types of laws.

Part of life ... is being treated like garbage by a stranger/employer/co-worker/family member/friend, etc.

These laws are about hurt feelings ... someone feels they didn't get treated with courtesy and respect.

I don't understand why you feel the need to trivialize the issue, and it isn't a normal part of life for everyone. It's a normal part of life for people who we routinely allow to be mistreated. Lon is very unlikely to be told that his business isn't welcome. So are you. So am I, for that matter. That doesn't make it right, or fair, and I see no good reason to just shrug at it and say "that's life". Only bad things can come from that kind of complacency.

So what. It happens. Then it also leaves someone telling a complete stranger what they think and feel (aka the thought police).

I did ask you a fairly pointed question previously about that, in the hopes that you would give some thought to what you are really proposing, and how it connects to the history of this country. I didn't see an answer, and that was a disappointment, because I really have a lot of respect for you, but I think on this issue, you're way wrong, and perhaps that you're letting a personal situation (from the example you gave) rule your entire evaluation of the issue. I would like an answer to the question I asked before.

Here it is again, for your consideration:

So, to be clear, you're saying that it should be completely legal for stores to hang "whites only" signs up, and kick out black people, so that if a black person you don't happen to like for entirely non-racial reasons comes into your business, you can kick them out without anyone suspecting that you are breaking the law?

People who push these type of laws come off looking like crybabies ... and in the case above, hypocrites.

I've explained several times what the relevant difference is, and no one has really engaged my explanation so far. You can call me a hypocrite all you like, but it doesn't appear that you can explain why you feel that way.

While you can bully someone into making a cake, I wonder how much satisfaction and joy it brings when the big event is overshadowed by knowing that special cake is layered with animosity.

There are a lot of Christians who have gone to great lengths to place their rights deliberately in conflict with the rights of LGBT people as a tactic to deny LGBT people equal rights. This is one more inning in that ballgame. I believe that the people who are doing this as sincere in their dislike of gay people. I do not believe that baking a cake is truly the issue. It's just the latest excuse. What they really want is gay people hiding in the closet at the least, but really they want to deny them existence.

Once the tactic stops working, people will stop caring. You're a baker, you make a cake for pay. That's what bakers do. I suspect that bakers that really object to writing the names of two men or two women on the cake, or who won't place same-sex figurines on cakes, will find a right to that kind of creative control, but very few will actually exercise that right, because no one is going to care. But in terms of being required to perform for gay people exactly the same service that is performed for straight people, there is no right to refuse service, and there is no justification for it either.

 

[gcthomas]

Actually, I didn't claim it as a moral argument. I claim it as a statement of fact.

What is a fact is that nature does not have a single purpose in mind and does not design. And you were, as a point of fact, drawing moral principles from your statements.

 

[Rusha]

I don't understand why you feel the need to trivialize the issue, and it isn't a normal part of life for everyone.

Because the denial is not a life threatening situation/service ...

It's not an emergency room, EMT, firefighter or cop. Having a custom cake made is not a necessity or an emergency and can certainly be obtained in a more friendly environment. It's not about giving approval of a business owner's decision, but rather supporting his right to deny service because it is the business owner. I think denying the cake is atrocious, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

It's a normal part of life for people who we routinely allow to be mistreated. Lon is very unlikely to be told that his business isn't welcome. So are you. So am I, for that matter. That doesn't make it right, or fair, and I see no good reason to just shrug at it and say "that's life". Only bad things can come from that kind of complacency.

This is where I believe that freedom swings both ways. A customer has the freedom to pick a business that will serve his/her needs best. As a customer, I would not patronize a business that used their ownership as a way to deny service for what I consider a trivial reason. Businesses live by word of mouth and reputation. I would also like to think that karma comes into play.

I also see the probability of some customers targeting certain businesses as a way "to get back at them".

I did ask you a fairly pointed question previously about that, in the hopes that you would give some thought to what you are really proposing, and how it connects to the history of this country. I didn't see an answer, and that was a disappointment, because I really have a lot of respect for you, but I think on this issue, you're way wrong, and perhaps that you're letting a personal situation (from the example you gave) rule your entire evaluation of the issue. I would like an answer to the question I asked before.

Here it is again, for your consideration:

I've explained several times what the relevant difference is, and no one has really engaged my explanation so far. You can call me a hypocrite all you like, but it doesn't appear that you can explain why you feel that way.

On most issues, we are generally in agreement, however, I do think that anyone who would not hold the gay baker (who refused service to the Christian) to the same standard as they do the Christian baker, is being hypocritical. IF this is truly about just baking cakes, then the gay bake shops should have made the cake as requested.

In each case, the business owner is offended by the message. The bakery owners in question, IMO, lost any credibility they had when they refused to bake the Christian's cake. This would have been a golden opportunity to lead by example and send the message: I am here to serve regardless of the service being requested.

There are a lot of Christians who have gone to great lengths to place their rights deliberately in conflict with the rights of LGBT people as a tactic to deny LGBT people equal rights. This is one more inning in that ballgame. I believe that the people who are doing this as sincere in their dislike of gay people. I do not believe that baking a cake is truly the issue. It's just the latest excuse. What they really want is gay people hiding in the closet at the least, but really they want to deny them existence.

Oh, I do believe that there is some serious animosity towards gays on the bake owners behalf. There is no denying that. But again, at the end of the day, it's a cake. Not a drivers license, medical care, etc.

I think buying cakes is trivial ... including those that I buy. No one has to eat a cake ... or have one freshly made. Just ask Sara Lee.

Once the tactic stops working, people will stop caring. You're a baker, you make a cake for pay. That's what bakers do. I suspect that bakers that really object to writing the names of two men or two women on the cake, or who won't place same-sex figurines on cakes, will find a right to that kind of creative control, but very few will actually exercise that right, because no one is going to care. But in terms of being required to perform for gay people exactly the same service that is performed for straight people, there is no right to refuse service, and there is no justification for it either.

And it all comes down to this argument ... I will always side on the right of business owners when I believe the issue is politically or religiously motivated.

 

[Town Heretic]

Because the denial is not a life threatening situation/service ...

That's where I think you make a mistake. It's not the particular act, but the foundational equality that the act represents that turns the point.

To exclude those from a service who can partake without disrupting it is to empower prejudice beyond the right to think and speak. That license invites a larger, systematic exclusion by the majority, against which the minority cannot hope to prevail and by which it can be excluded from all but the lowest hanging fruit of a compact.

In our nation we've proffered that as incompatible with the spirit and functioning of the a just republic, antithetical to the spirit of fraternity and equality in opportunity fundamental to a free people.

I have to agree.

 

[Lighthouse]

Just as some Christians derive their anti-gay beliefs from the Bible, so do some racist Christians.

Where in the Bible?

I can't find anywhere in the Bible that says it's forbidden to bake cakes for a same-sex wedding.

Homosexuality is forbidden, thus by extrapolation so is same sex marriage. Thus baking a cake to celebrate it is a violation of the belief that homosexuality is a sin, you lack-wit.

HERE. As long as a person is a member of a protected class, they cannot be denied equal services and accommodations.

Even if their a jerk to the staff and/or customers?

of course not, I'm not a bigot

Yes you are. I simply changed the people who were the subject of your post and nothing else. It is what you posted, verbatim. You are a complete bigot. Especially as you have singled out one group of people to discriminate against.

Can you prove otherwise?

Ask Quincy about the fluidity of orientation.

Didin't ans my question at all

It wasn't meant to. It was sarcasm.

But if you can't figure out the point of my retort, then you are completely lost in your liberal delusion.

Can you prove it's not?

You're the one who made the assumption. The onus is on you.

 

[jeremysdemo]

I think denying the cake is atrocious, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Exactly, it's a standard case of having the 'right' to do the wrong thing doesn't mean we should.

There are many mean things we have the right to do to one another that we simply should not.

I had the right to imprison my wife for 3 years for adultery,

everyone that knows me and my testimony for Messiah knows what happened under God's Spirit instead.

and for those that don't, we are celebrating our 5th year of re-marriage, happily.

I am glad I did not act on my 'right' but instead sought Gods will on the matter,

I doubt she would have re-married me after her stint and I would not be happy today without her.

God knows all that and what is best for His sheep, that's why we need to follow His Spirits lead,

not the letter of the law or the spirit that drives our "rights" to be enforced. IMHO.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Exactly, it's a standard case of having the 'right' to do the wrong thing doesn't mean we should.

Where does this supposed "right" to engage in evil behavior (i.e. "do the wrong thing") come from Sandy and jerm?

 

[The Barbarian]

Where does this supposed "right" to engage in evil behavior (i.e. "do the wrong thing") come from Sandy and jerm?

God gives you freedom to be evil if you wish. But you're not home free. If you hate, or abuse that freedom, you can sear your soul and lose any chance at salvation. However, God gives you the freedom to do it, if you will.

Government does not have the right to overrule Him on this. It can keep people from interfering with others, but it is not the function of government to make us good.

Because government has become your god, this makes no sense to you.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

God gives you freedom to be evil if you wish.

God gave us all the free will to choose between right and wrong/good and evil. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does He say that choosing evil is a 'right'.

 

[The Barbarian]

God gave us all the free will to choose between right and wrong/good and evil. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does He say that choosing evil is a 'right'.

He merely gives us the ability to do so. And if He thought that was the right thing to do, who are you to overrule Him?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He merely gives us the ability to do so. And if He thought that was the right thing to do, who are you to overrule Him?

Boy barbarian, that response is almost as good as your legalize incest posts in my WHMBR! Part 3 thread.

The 'right" to commit evil is quite different than God giving us the 'opportunity' (through free will) to do so.

 

[The Barbarian]

The 'right" to commit evil is quite different than God giving us the 'opportunity' (through free will) to do so.

It is not the role of law to force us to be good. If you want to live in a nation based on that idea, you can get a visa, and our thanks.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It is not the role of law to force us to be good. If you want to live in a nation based on that idea, you can get a visa, and our thanks.

Through unrighteous/immoral laws, you liberals are encouraging people to be bad.

We'll see who wins this on-going culture war barbarian (I'll give you a hint as to whose going to win: God doesn't lose).

 

[jeremysdemo]

the wrong thing to do in my case would have been to imprison my wife and make her pay for something the Lord brought her to repentance of. Matthew 6:15

Of course under the law it was my 'right' to have her imprisoned, and people all hung up and the law and don't know how to act are thinking they have to do what the law says is their right to do.

I beleive ACW to be one of these types of people, I don't beleive he could take the high road if he was surrounded by a cannon and it was the only way out, Matthew 7:14.

So for them we have 'rights' and 'laws' because without them they don't know how to act with any dignity, Romans 7:7.

Paul preached on that problem extensively in his letters which I'm sure ACW relates to, Romans 7:15.

where he takes it too far is because he is like this he thinks everyone else needs to be under the law too.

Even these passages I give thee I do not have to follow legalistically, these things just happen naturally and easily Matthew 11:30 for those whom seek His Kingdom Luke 12:31.

 

[rexlunae]

Because the denial is not a life threatening situation/service ...

I don't see why that should be the standard.

This is where I believe that freedom swings both ways.

And negates civil rights completely in so doing?

A customer has the freedom to pick a business that will serve his/her needs best. As a customer, I would not patronize a business that used their ownership as a way to deny service for what I consider a trivial reason. Businesses live by word of mouth and reputation. I would also like to think that karma comes into play.

Well, I don't believe in karma, and I don't rely on it for justice. It certainly doesn't happen automatically, otherwise we wouldn't have had centuries of slavery and decades of segregation.

On most issues, we are generally in agreement, however, I do think that anyone who would not hold the gay baker (who refused service to the Christian) to the same standard as they do the Christian baker, is being hypocritical. IF this is truly about just baking cakes, then the gay bake shops should have made the cake as requested.

But...it isn't the same standard. I think a baker probably does have a right to refuse to write a given message. What I don't think they can refuse is the service that is offered to everyone.

In each case, the business owner is offended by the message.

No, that isn't true. The baker in Colorado didn't know what the message was going to be, because they refused service before it was discussed. They were offended by who was asking for it, which is very different.

The bakery owners in question, IMO, lost any credibility they had when they refused to bake the Christian's cake. This would have been a golden opportunity to lead by example and send the message: I am here to serve regardless of the service being requested.

Maybe they should have, but what they were asked to do was a pretty clear and deliberate poke in the eye. And I don't know that there's a lot of rhetorical advantage in indulging obvious trolling. And additionally, there's nothing in civil rights laws protecting a given message, so they certainly have no legal obligation to do it.

People have civil rights. Beliefs do not. Messages do not.

Did you notice that none of the bakeries this vile little troll in the OP called refused him service? They all either hung up on him when they determined that he wasn't really a customer, or they refused to write the hateful message he requested.

And it all comes down to this argument ... I will always side on the right of business owners when I believe the issue is politically or religiously motivated.

More of a position that you stake out than an argument, isn't it?