So if a couple wanted a naked bride and groom, a Christian baker should not be able to refuse?
Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
So if a couple wanted a naked bride and groom, a Christian baker should not be able to refuse?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Either equal protection under the law for both or not.
If the gays can refuse and get away with it so should Christians be able to refuse without harassment, lawsuits etc.
If gays are now prosecuted and driven out of business, great.
The best solution is that gays seek the deliverance they need.
Homosexuality, like all sin can and should be overcome
Paul, in the first epistle after the opening verses of Romans, immediately confronts God rejecters and homosexuals. He does not waste any time rooting out the worst offenders
If the gays can refuse and get away with it so should Christians be able to refuse without harassment, lawsuits etc.
If gays are now prosecuted and driven out of business, great.
The best solution is that gays seek the deliverance they need.
Homosexuality, like all sin can and should be overcome
Paul, in the first epistle after the opening verses of Romans, immediately confronts God rejecters and homosexuals. He does not waste any time rooting out the worst offenders
I do support the bakers right to refuse service.
What I don't support is the double standard and the complete lack of any media attention on the reverse side of the equation.
One of the reasons that it is especially important to protect LGBT people under civil rights laws is the well-established history of mistreatment and marginalization of those people. That's a distinction made by the law and by courts. So it's really a false equivalency. If it were true that Christians were subject to routine suspicion and discrimination, any discrimination against them would merit a much higher level of scrutiny.
Furthermore, it is hard to see where the message "gay marriage is wrong" is a genuine religious expression and thus protectable under civil rights law. It seems to me that the point is the political message rather than the expression of a religious sentiment, in which case the free speech rights of the bakery make take precedence.
While there's nothing inherently obscene about nudity, unless the bakers do that sort of thing for anyone who walks in, no. Again, it's classic goose/gander. You can't discriminate, but that doesn't mean you can be forced to provide a service outside of the parameters of what you hold out as a product. So that would be different from a one sided refusal based not on the product, but upon the baker's impression of the client.
IF you truly are against discrimination, numbers shouldn't matter.
gcthomas
New member
There is a difference between some and none. I'm not against discrimination in general, but unfair discrimination.
Doom
New member
Define unfair?
Everyone is biased ... so when it comes to fairness VS rights, you need to show that an actual harm is being done to those you deem are being treated unfairly.
IF a Christian baker refuses to bake or sell to me because I am not a Christian, that's good enough for me. I may be annoyed, but I have other options that are superior to creating a ruckus over such a silly issue. Personally, I would not want to line the person's pocket with my money.
And yes, having someone refuse to bake a cake or bake it to a certain specification is a small annoyance compared to actions that actually harm people.
gcthomas
New member
The problem, Rusha, is the imbalance of power. If a minority refused to serve a majority, then the minority get put out of business. If the majority refuses to serve a minority then the minority has a huge reduction in options while the majority hardly notices the loss in business.
See, when discrimination is allowed it is the minority that experiences the lion's share of the hardship. That is why law works hard to equalise the situation by protecting minorities.
See, when discrimination is allowed it is the minority that experiences the lion's share of the hardship. That is why law works hard to equalise the situation by protecting minorities.
Doom
New member
Jose Fly
New member
Right. The fundamental problem with what's described in the OP is that it tries to equate two very different things.
First we have gay couples who go into bakeries and ask for wedding cakes for their weddings. Christian bakers refuse because of their religious opposition to gay marriage, thus violating the relevant anti-discrimination laws (gays are a protected class under such laws). So the Christian baker is at fault.
But then we have Christians calling bakeries on the phone (and we have to trust that the people they're talking to are actually gay bakers, and the whole thing isn't hoax) and requesting a cake that says "Gay marriage is wrong". The gay bakers refuse. But they aren't violating any anti-discrimination laws. There's nothing in those laws that says businesses have to do anything any customer requests. So the gay bakers are not at fault.
"People who oppose gay marriage" are not a protected class under anti-discrimination laws, thus no law was violated, thus trying to equate it with the other scenario is specious at best.
I am not interested in protecting people just because they belong to a ... group. Also, in the situation we are speaking of, where is the THREAT and DEVASTATION they are being protected from?
Seriously, if you were arguing that an EMT had the duty to provide service to a patient and should not be allowed to use their religion as a basis to discriminate, I would agree. But that just isn't the case here.
It's a matter of hurt feelings and ego from the offended party. The same would hold true in regards to the OP ... a Christian being denied service.
Go elsewhere. It's not like they are being refused a blood transfusion or CPR.
Another consideration to ponder, in the cases that I'm aware of, the gay couples have been turned away prior to considerations about what they actually wanted the cake to look like, on the basis of the fact that it was merely for a gay wedding. In other words, they were refused, not for the content of the requested product, but for the fact that it was going to be used in a gay wedding, which means that the owners of the bakeries wouldn't have had a chance to assert a First Amendment right to a claim of free expression. It strikes me that there is quite a difference between being forced to bake a cake to be used in a wedding ceremony and being forced to write some particular thing upon said cake.
I think there is a double standard and I don't like that, but I question a Christian coming up with this experiment, and I question even more the idea that this guy should sue all the bakers that denied him service (I don't know if Shoebat would do it but I've seen that idea in this thread). Are Christians really supposed to fight back?
I don't see how suing these bakeries, or doing the experiment at all (especially recording the bakeries without their knowledge and then putting it on the internet) is following any of the verses above. Or is a loving response. It seems like much of Christianity in America is very concerned about maintaining political power or avenging/righting wrongs and not very much about bearing and suffering all things in love.
I've been reading Bonhoeffer recently and he has been helpful in taking a fresh look at what discipleship with Jesus means.
| 1Co 4:11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 1Co 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 1Co 4:13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Rom 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. Pro 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: Pro 25:22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee. |
I don't see how suing these bakeries, or doing the experiment at all (especially recording the bakeries without their knowledge and then putting it on the internet) is following any of the verses above. Or is a loving response. It seems like much of Christianity in America is very concerned about maintaining political power or avenging/righting wrongs and not very much about bearing and suffering all things in love.
I've been reading Bonhoeffer recently and he has been helpful in taking a fresh look at what discipleship with Jesus means.
shagster01
New member
Two sides. Each hypocritically doing the same thing they are yelling at the others about.
Way to prove that gays and Christians are both the same kind of stupid.
Way to prove that gays and Christians are both the same kind of stupid.