Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[suncowiam]

It's not a trans person's birthday is wrong but because the cake was celebrating what to him violates his conscious. It's nothing personal. Not sure why liberals don't understand it's not personal. Just a matter of conscious.

Of course it's personal.

All this yap and I bet this same baker would take offense if a doctor didn't want to treat him for cancer because the doctor was against religion.

"Oh, it's not personal but a matter of conscious." That is one of the worst spins I've ever read.

Stop this nonsense.

 

[ecco]

If someone had a genuine conviction that made them unable to make a cake for some Christian purpose of mine, I'd be a bit miffed. But, I'd suck it up and go somewhere else.

And if you lived in a Country where most people disparaged Christians, you'd have a hard time going somewhere else.

Once again we have a baker not denying service to certain people, but denying services for specific purposes to all people. He wouldn't make a trans-anniversary cake for a straight normal Christian either. He doesn't want to make something for the purpose of supporting what his convictions tell him he can't. It isn't the person, it is the reason.

Priests, ministers, pastors were against all inter-racial marriages and denied marriage services to all for the specific reason they were against inter-racial marriage.


It's not discrimination until it's discrimination against you - right?

 

[Stevicus]

It's the thin edge of the wedge. Nobody will die without cake, but they may die without other things provided by businesses (housing or employment, for instance). Establishing that a business has the right to be religiously hateful about a cake can serve as a precedent that a business has the right to be religiously hateful about, say, renting out an apartment, offering someone a job, giving them access to credit, and on, and on.

I don't think the slope is as slippery as that. I see your point, and we should always be wary and protective of human rights.

What's wrong with that? It's right out of the civil rights playbook to test businesses to see if they're following the law after they've been ordered to do so.

Would you have the same objection to, say, a black person who tried ordering lunch at a formerly segregated restaurant to see if they had really decided to obey the law?

There may not be anything wrong with it. I'm just saying if they have to be that thorough and painstaking in trying to find one person who's not following the law, then I would say that the law is mostly working. Sure, if there's one or two out there not obeying, then the law must take its course, but I don't see this as some kind of national crisis.

 

[ecco]

I think it means you don't understand the rules of logic.

Please show what makes you believe I don't understand the rules of logic.

Just typical straw man argument, hyperbole, and whatnot.

Please show what straw man argument I presented.

Somewhere in this thread I said something along the lines of, "This issue is too big for local government to decide.. It's something that has to be handled at a constitutional/court level."

Well, good for you.

 

[InChrist]

So then the Old Law still stands... shellfish and poly/cotton blends are still an abomination, his assurance to the disciples that there is no unclean food notwithstanding. So which is it? Is he contradicting himself?

No contradiction. The dietary laws still apply to Israel, unless a Jewish person places their faith in Christ. His disciples, of course had done so, therefore all food was clean for them, as Jesus taught.
As I mentioned earlier, though, this is getting off topic.

 

[InChrist]

That's ridiculous, and is cherry-picking at its finest. You made that up. If I use the word I want to use it will get filtered out and lose its punch. So I have to settle for 'ridiculous'.

Read the scriptures, it is not cherry-picking or ridiculous. But this is off topic.

 

[InChrist]

I think you are confusing conscious with discrimination. That guy is discriminating. Period. And faith has always zero priority when compared with secular duties in a modern society.

Suppose I make up yet another new variant of Christianity that think that black people are not pure (Mormonism started slightly like that, so it is not so out of bound). Now suppose that a lot of people embrace this new religion, and black people cannot buy any cake anymore, or buy anything at all.

Would you be fine with that? If not, why not? Do you respect restrictions in places like Iran or Sudan that are mainly officially motivated by faith?

It is just conscious, after all. And faith should be respected, no matter how ridiculous, right? Because the irrational belief in imaginary homophobic beings deserves much more respect than the birthday of a trans, or the happiness of a gay couple.

Right?

Ciao

- viole

You could "make-up" a new variant about black people being impure, but there is nothing in the Bible to support that, so it is not Christianity at all.

 

[Holdasown]

No contradiction. The dietary laws still apply to Israel, unless a Jewish person places their faith in Christ. His disciples, of course had done so, therefore all food was clean for them, as Jesus taught.
As I mentioned earlier, though, this is getting off topic.

Actually the it's all about the topic. He is applying the old law to his Christian walk.

 

[Jainarayan]

Read the scriptures, it is not cherry-picking or ridiculous. But this is off topic.

I have read them. I still read them when it’s necessary to point out someone’s errors.

 

[Jainarayan]

No contradiction. The dietary laws still apply to Israel, unless a Jewish person places their faith in Christ. His disciples, of course had done so, therefore all food was clean for them, as Jesus taught.
As I mentioned earlier, though, this is getting off topic.

Do the old laws apply to those who place their faith in Christ?

 

[viole]

I think you are confusing conscious with discrimination. That guy is discriminating. Period. And faith has always zero priority when compared with secular duties in a modern society.

Suppose I make up yet another new variant of Christianity that think that black people are not pure (Mormonism started slightly like that, so it is not so out of bound). Now suppose that a lot of people embrace this new religion, and black people cannot buy any cake anymore, or buy anything at all.

Would you be fine with that? If not, why not? Do you respect restrictions in places like Iran or Sudan that are mainly officially motivated by faith?

It is just conscious, after all. And faith should be respected, no matter how ridiculous, right? Because the irrational belief in imaginary beings deserves much more respect than the birthday of a trans.

Right?

Ciao

- viole

You could "make-up" a new variant about black people being impure, but there is nothing in the Bible to support that, so it is not Christianity at all.

Who cares. You do not have the monopoly of faith.
Or is discrimination allowed only when perpetrated by Bible believers?

Is that so?

Ciao

-viole

 

[Ponder This]

Last year:



This year:

Jack Phillips is suing after getting in trouble for refusing to make a birthday cake for a trans woman.

Christian Baker: Making a Birthday Cake for a Trans Woman Violates My Faith

This is not the same as you refusing to play a specific song for anyone.

To be clear: Jack Phillips is suing the the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Governor John Hickenlooper for harassment. The issue being whether or not the Commission and/or the Governor are targeting Jack for his religious beliefs and practices. Jack Phillips has been harassed with many requests for offensive cakes since his refusal to make the gay wedding cake.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner sues Hickenlooper, claiming religious persecution despite Supreme Court ruling

“The woman on the phone did not object to my request for a birthday cake until I told her I was celebrating my transition from male to female,” Scardina wrote in her complaint. “I believe that I was not allowed to order a birthday cake because I requested that its colors celebrate my transition.”​

The question for you to answer would be: How is this different from believing that a singer has refused to sing a song because the lyrics offended the singer?

In other words, Masterpiece Cakeshop had no problem making a birthday cake for Autumn Scardina despite the fact that Autumn Scardina was transgender. She was refused because she wanted them to create a transgender symbol on the cake.

Suppose someone calls you up and requests a birthday cake... and then says he wants some Swastikas on it to celebrate that he has been an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi for the past seven years. Do you have a right to refuse to make a cake with Nazi Swastikas on it?

The issue is very sensitive but also very subtle. It will be interesting to see the final ruling. The issue is directly related to the boundaries of free speech.

 

[Mister Emu]

And if you lived in a Country where most people disparaged Christians, you'd have a hard time going somewhere else.

Yes, and I might just have to accept I'm not getting a professional cake for my religious purpose they can't support.

It's not discrimination until it's discrimination against you - right?

Of course it is discrimination, the questions are whether it is legal discrimination and in principle if it is a discrimination it is proper to use government force to stop.

We all discriminate all of the time, most of it isn't illegal and some discrimination is a clear good.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You could "make-up" a new variant about black people being impure, but there is nothing in the Bible to support that, so it is not Christianity at all.

In your interpretation of the Bible, maybe. Many disagree with you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think the slope is as slippery as that. I see your point, and we should always be wary and protective of human rights.

The slope is that slippery, and indeed it wasn't long ago when LBGT people were fired from jobs and evicted from homes in most states just for being.

You could "make-up" a new variant about black people being impure, but there is nothing in the Bible to support that, so it is not Christianity at all.

There is nothing new about racist Biblical interpretations, such as believing black people are the cursed descendants of Ham who are black because they bear his curse. It isn't new when a white supremacist gets the idea that the Bible prohibits interracial marriages.

 

[74x12]

Of course it's personal.

All this yap and I bet this same baker would take offense if a doctor didn't want to treat him for cancer because the doctor was against religion.

"Oh, it's not personal but a matter of conscious." That is one of the worst spins I've ever read.

Stop this nonsense.

I agree it's personal. It's personal on the part of liberals who are playing the "get the Christian baker" game. It's just a stupid political game people play.

 

[InChrist]

There is nothing new about racist Biblical interpretations, such as believing black people are the cursed descendants of Ham who are black because they bear his curse. It isn't new when a white supremacist gets the idea that the Bible prohibits interracial marriages.

May not be new, but it is not biblical. The Bible reveals only one race...human race.

 

[InChrist]

In your interpretation of the Bible, maybe. Many disagree with you.

It's not my interpretation. The scriptures interpret themselves and according to the Bible there is only one race...the human race.

 

[InChrist]

Who cares. You do not have the monopoly of faith.
Or is discrimination allowed only when perpetrated by Bible believers?

Is that so?

Ciao

-viole

I thought you cared since you brought it up. The Bible doesn't condone racist or personal discrimination. It is concerned with moral or immoral behavior, right and wrong, truth or falsehood.

 

[InChrist]

Do the old laws apply to those who place their faith in Christ?

Jesus summed up the law in the NT ...

Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:36-40

Those who have placed their faith in Christ have His righteousness and fulfillment of the old laws applied to their lives. They are under grace, not bound by the letter of the law...

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14