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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's an interesting take.

Almost as interesting as your take, where “if you can dream it, we can make it” becomes “if you can dream it, we won’t actually make it even though we’re able.”

So you think that offer is open to any and all possible designs, and there is no room for him to deny anything that comes by without being labeled "less than honest".

I think there’s no reasonable interpretation of it that suggests he won’t make a plain pink cake with blue icing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

All food is clean, except food associated with transgender people, apparently.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was not referring to the renewed attack, but to the last one.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “exhibited hostility” to Jack Phillips’s religious beliefs while also acknowledging that it’s acceptable for generally applicable law to limit the freedom of religion of a business owner:

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When you read them do you ask God to give you His wisdom and understanding?

Yes. Yes I did-- for years and years... because what I was reading did NOT match with any being who was Loving....

Apparently god had "better" things to do-- and never bothered a reply.

Eventually, (I'm stubborn--it took years) I realized there was no one there to reply....!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My actual claim is that God has an intended interpretation and the scriptures do interpret themselves. Those who seek His interpretation, submitting their ideas to His will over time have their thoughts conformed to His interpretation.

Except when what you outline above? Does not, in fact, work.

I know of countless examples where this is the case, in fact...

 

[Shad]

Will they, though? Is that how it worked in the Jim Crow era South?

It failed not due to capitalism nor the free market but due to government control such a mandated segregation as part of the building code. It was illegal to have a completely open unsegregated restaurant for example. The comparison you presented is flawed.

 

[Audie]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “exhibited hostility” to Jack Phillips’s religious beliefs while also acknowledging that it’s acceptable for generally applicable law to limit the freedom of religion of a business owner:

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

I am not fond of this whole thing, as I personally
would bake the darn cake. I am absolutely not a fan
of Christian fundamentalism.

I am also not a fan of a simple businessman being
ganged up on.

You did not respond to my q about a cake for a 12 yr old
bride, entirely legal in some countries.

Also not a fan of this topic, so I am going to refrain from
further comment.


Another summary-

Do you find that the take away is that the guy is a
a scofflaw?

The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not fond of this whole thing, as I personally
would bake the darn cake. I am absolutely not a fan
of Christian fundamentalism.

I am also not a fan of a simple businessman being
ganged up on.

Meh. He can stop what’s happening any time by just obeying the law. I’m sure he thinks he’s in the right, but marginalizing trans people isn’t exactly the moral high ground. The law, morality, and ethics are all against him.

You did not respond to my q about a cake for a 12 yr old
bride, entirely legal in some countries.

That’s right. It’s unrealistic: cakes aren’t something that typically get shipped internationally. It’s also missing the point, since refusing to provide a service to a wedding of a child bride would be legal.

Also not a fan of this topic, so I am going to refrain from
further comment.


Another summary-

Do you find that the take away is that the guy is a
a scofflaw?

More that he’s a bigot and a bully, but yes: he doesn’t seem to have much regard for the law when he feels the law is inconvenient.

 

[Koldo]

Bacon, yeah I guess. And the wedding cake for a 12 yr old girl?

Personally, I think the targeting of the guy for his
beliefs is shameful.

I think it is reasonable to refrain from selling something if that thing is going to be used in an illegal act ( or an act that would be illegal in your country ). But other than that it is not anybody's business how what is for sale is going to be used.

"Are you going to use this car to drive all the way up to Colorado ? Sorry, in that case I am going to refuse to sell it to you."

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But why stop there? I could even maintain a comprehensive list of employers who use my temp service so that everyone knows the 'right' businesses to go to.

They could wear special Arm Bands, right? Something with "Gott mit uns" would go over very well, I would think....

 

[dianaiad]

When you live here, it's a daily reality that there could be nothing comparable:
Google Maps

Don't be silly. I was just there, actually; Cedar Breaks National Monument and Zion National Park are beautiful, even in August.

......and are you seriously telling me that Cedar City, and St. George, don't have bakers that would cater gay weddings? (snort)

Got news for you.

Of the seven (yes, SEVEN...this is Mormon polygamy country, after all...) wedding cake bakeries, I know for an absolute fact that NONE of them would refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

In fact, when my 'adopted' son got engaged ('adopted,' because he and my two daughters have been best friends for close onto twenty years), all seven gave him and his future husband quotes, and none of them so much as blinked.

Now you can take your obvious prejudice and...stuff it. If you personally had a different experience, I'm sorry for it, but (shrug) that's what WE experienced.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think it is reasonable to refrain from selling something if that thing is going to be used in an illegal act ( or an act that would be illegal in your country ). But other than that it is not anybody's business how what is for sale is going to be used.

"Are you going to use this car to drive all the way up to Colorado ? Sorry, in that case I am going to refuse to sell it to you."

In fact, you could be be brought on charges for providing services that assist in a crime. Especially if you are reasonably aware of your customer's illegal intentions. For example, if a trio of bank robbers hire an Uber as a getaway car, the Uber driver is likely to be prosecuted as an accessory and no cry of providing impartial service is going to acquit them.

Obviously, baking a cake is not going to be so cut and dry as that, but the principle stands. I struggle to imagine a realistic scenario where baking a cake is going to violate the law, such that refusal is legally expected, but stranger things have happened I'm sure.

Obviously, there is nothing illegal about being transgender and certainly nothing illegal about celebrating that fact, either so the point is fairly moot.

 

[Sir Doom]

I thought of something to add.

If a vendor/service provider is allowed to refuse goods/services on the grounds of their religious freedom, doesn't that set precedent for the holder of their lease to do the same? We would essentially be subverting the the idea if a business license in that it would once again be at the whim and will if the landowner who and what goods and services are available and allowed as opposed to zoning laws and fair market practices.

This is really just another slippery slope argument, but that slope is steep and nearby if you ask me.

 

[sojourner]

My actual claim is that God has an intended interpretation and the scriptures do interpret themselves. Those who seek His interpretation, submitting their ideas to His will over time have their thoughts conformed to His interpretation.

Yeah, no, that’s not How it Works.

 

[sojourner]

You discriminate with who you will spend your time around, who is a potential romantic partner, if you hire you discriminate in choosing who is acceptable for work, businesses are discriminant in who they allow as patrons.

We discriminate in nearly all aspects of our life.

That’s not the definition in use here, though.

 

[InChrist]

Yeah, no, that’s not How it Works.

So you say, but I believe God has an intended meaning and the scripture interprets scripture under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit...

"Seeking the Author's Intended Meaning
Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning).

One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers.

Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text)."
Interpreting Scripture (by Ron Rhodes)

The Interpretation of Scripture
The Interpretation of Scripture, by J.I. Packer

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say, but I believe God has an intended meaning and the scripture interprets scripture under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit...

"Seeking the Author's Intended Meaning
Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning (the only true meaning).

One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers.

Meaning is determined by the author; it is discovered by readers.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisogesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text)."
Interpreting Scripture (by Ron Rhodes)

The Interpretation of Scripture
The Interpretation of Scripture, by J.I. Packer

The problem with that is that one ends up with 40,000 different "inspired" interpretations of the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Instead of superimposing a meaning on the biblical text, the objective interpreter seeks to discover the author's intended meaning

Yeah, that’s not strictly exegesis, either. Exegesis attempts to get at what the authors are saying, but it is recognized that the texts will support any number of viable interpretations based on what the authors are saying.

 

[InChrist]

Yeah, that’s not strictly exegesis, either. Exegesis attempts to get at what the authors are saying, but it is recognized that the texts will support any number of viable interpretations based on what the authors are saying.

Okay, well then the difference is that you see "authors" of the scriptures, while I see writers used by One Author who has a specific interpretation and meaning to the various passages of the scriptures.

 

[dianaiad]

I thought of something to add.

If a vendor/service provider is allowed to refuse goods/services on the grounds of their religious freedom, doesn't that set precedent for the holder of their lease to do the same? We would essentially be subverting the the idea if a business license in that it would once again be at the whim and will if the landowner who and what goods and services are available and allowed as opposed to zoning laws and fair market practices.

This is really just another slippery slope argument, but that slope is steep and nearby if you ask me.

OK, here's the problem I have.

We have a baker (never mind Phelps, let's go for one with some sense). Or we could have a photographer.

Whatever.

A gay couple has been using their services for awhile now: birthday parties, graduation parties, proms...whatever...and the baker/photographer has been happily 'doing' for them for all those events.

But now that couple wants them to 'do' their wedding, and they are refused because the baker/photographer's religion has a real problem with gay weddings. They can't participate.

How is that different from the Kosher deli that refuses to cater a 'gentile' wedding, because it only does Jewish ones?

Nobody has any problems with that.

How is that any different from the Catholic baker/photographer who won't 'do' the wedding of someone who has been divorced? Nobody has any problem with that, either.

If we can force someone to 'do' an EVENT that is against their religion, then...we can force that Kosher deli to 'do' that Catholic wedding, or the Catholic to 'do' the wedding of that thrice divorced groom. We can force anybody to go against their religious beliefs.

............and IMO, that is against everything the first amendment was written for.

The first amendment was not written to protect the politically correct. It was not written to make certain that all religions and stated opinions are protected as long as they toe the current popular and culturally acceptable line.

It was written to protect the unpopular from the bullies; the atheists from the theists, the Christians from each other, and the silly and stupid from those who would shut them up.

.........especially since the silly and stupid of today can gain power and, using the precedents established, shut you down later.