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

[rexlunae]

I understand that at least in some cases, Christian bakers where asked to produce a message in writing as offensive to them, as the message this guy asked homosexual bakers to produce.

Well, in the case that has lead to an actual legal action, the bakers refused to make the cake before the appearance or content of the cake was discussed. That's a big part of why they got in trouble. You can't claim free speech or free expression when you haven't even heard what, if anything it is that you're being asked to write.

While baking a cake certainly isn't an endorsement of one POV or the other, it seems like an abuse of one's rights to me, to force them to write something they find morally or religiously wrong.

I think that's essentially true. Or at least there's a real legitimate free speech and free expression case to be made.

Extremists on both sides seem unwilling to live and let live: they want to force everyone to agree with them.

I think that's false balance. Even if you allow that the LGBT activists have been overzealous, they are fighting for long-denied rights, and we should be able to rely on the law and the courts to reign them in if they go too far. This guy in the videos is trolling in defense of long-held privilege, and against civil rights.

 

[rexlunae]

:doh:

mr science sez you fail

Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?

 

[Lon]

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.

 

[resodko]

Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?

no, prolly not :idunno:

 

[Lon]

Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?

Why do you find that disturbing? No blood, just a visual of losing one's brains/mind.

 

[Doom]

Is there any chance we could have this discussion without posting disturbing images?

I agree. Any conversation that includes a discussion about "gay" rights is disturbing enough.

 

[Jedidiah]

Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws. Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.

In the First Amendment which has been incorporated against all of the fifty states, we have the freedom of religion. My religion, which is not some fly-by-night moneymaking scheme and has been around for almost two thousand years, is against gay marriage, and so therefore your argument is invalid.

 

[Jedidiah]

If you don't like our naked parades in front of your children, you dont have to look

If i want you to agree, you will or pay me and be fined and go out of business....

Why is what we do your business anyway stay out of our bedroom untill we force you there....

:think:

Regardless of the morality of this matter, can we all agree that it is adult content ? My main beef with some LBGTQ's is that they aren't discreet. These bad apples along with non-LBGTQ's who belligerently preach that we all have to accept this adult subject matter being broadcast to our children, forced upon them without a second thought, is the problem.

I would feel the same way about people who want to familiarize my kids with graphic marital acts; they're kids and this is adult content.

What is the argument that this is not adult content ?

 

[Jedidiah]

...so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take...

Our Lord Jesus Christ had no trouble convincing the commoners Who He is; it was the scribes and teachers of the law who were unmoved.

...that's more miraculous than Peters 3000 conversion in Acts for sure.

As it should be.

 

[Jedidiah]

I think the two men/women on top of the cake or the two male/female names would be an indicator to the baker. If someone from asked for a cake with NAMBLA celebrates 50 years on the cake, any baker should be free to discriminate.

Would you have an issue if a Jewish baker was asked to make a cake in the form of swastika and said no?

How about an African American baker being asked to put KKK on a cake in the shape of a noose?

Discrimination is a good thing, when it is done for the right reasons.

You raise the good point that there is no symbol that represents loving disapproval of LBGTQ-marriage. It used to be the Cross. They took that one.

 

[republicanchick]

“
. So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. .

[STORY[/URL]

wow, bummers... I don't have ear phones today

 

[republicanchick]

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.

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?"

If so, then we should applaud the efforts of this guy. If not, then he's just making Christians look foolish.

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



__

 

[Jose Fly]

In the First Amendment which has been incorporated against all of the fifty states, we have the freedom of religion. My religion, which is not some fly-by-night moneymaking scheme and has been around for almost two thousand years, is against gay marriage, and so therefore your argument is invalid.

So having cakes with "gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential part of Christianity, that not getting one constitutes denying you the ability to practice your faith?

 

[jeremysdemo]

Our Lord Jesus Christ had no trouble convincing the commoners Who He is; it was the scribes and teachers of the law who were unmoved.

convincing commoners (whoever they are) who He is is a far cry from refusing food service based on belief, which he never did IMHO,

so far I have yet to see a valid argument made to that effect, so the point I made remains.

all this abortion and other off topic banter is just that, obfuscation because the Christians of this board are having a hard time dealing with the reality of the topic. :chuckle:

the gays seem to be handling it well tho....

 

[Jose Fly]

But here's the bottom line for me: private industries should have the right to "discriminate" against what is morally repugnant to them.

So "whites only" shops are just fine?

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.

Religious affiliation is also a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Religion is obviously a choice. Would you be ok with government-sanctioned discrimination against Christians?

 

[Jedidiah]

So having cakes with "gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential part of Christianity, that not getting one constitutes denying you the ability to practice your faith?

I didn't say that....

 

[resodko]

So "whites only" shops are just fine?

as long as we can exclude the micks and the dagos

 

[kmoney]

Religious affiliation is also a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Religion is obviously a choice. Would you be ok with government-sanctioned discrimination against Christians?

I think that's exactly what some are saying the gov't is doing. lain:

 

[jeremysdemo]

:doh:

mr science sez you fail

well than mr. science needs to update his textbooks, or open one? :chuckle:

90% of human cell reproduction comes for the bacteria in our stomachs and 10% is from our own DNA.

Embryonic cells are just that, they are pre-human, and at this point any DNA can be introduced and will then code the embryo into any animal of choice should the environment support it's growth.

I can't beleive I even entertained this silly post that added nothing to the topic, but for the benefit of educated readers it was worth it...

 

[Jedidiah]

...so the 5000 that ate fish and loaves, ALL believed? not a single doubter in the lot.

interesting take....

Our Lord Jesus Christ had no trouble convincing the commoners Who He is; it was the scribes and teachers of the law who were unmoved.

convincing commoners (whoever they are) who He is is a far cry from refusing food service based on belief, which he never did IMHO,....

Sure is.