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

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Slavery is supposed to be illegal, isn't it?

Slaves are not given a choice. The very bigoted Baker? Could always quit baking cakes for anyone.

Rather a difference, don't you think?

Oh! You DO NOT SEE the difference?

Yeah.... *sigh*

 

[sojourner]

Agree, it should be that way.
If I were a baker I wouldn’t go beyond my sphere of concern.



But it shouldn’t be illegal for a Baker to deny a service that he would consider immoral. That is simply my opinion, feel free to ether agree or disagree.

How can one consider a human being to be immoral, just because they want a wedding cake?

 

[sojourner]

But. From one point of view, since nobody has ever managed to show their god(s) are actually real?

All religion is "film-flammery". Who gets to decide which ones are "real", and deserving of the title "minister" and which ones are not?

... you?

Or a partisan committee of the major religions-- none of whom can actually prove their primary claims?

Who's to say that the First Church Of Elvis isn't the One True Church? At least Elvis was Real....!

In general I’d say that a church whose roots are in the apostolic tradition carry a little more authority to discern the call.

 

[sojourner]

I do not find that to be accurate, actually.....

Oh? They all require graduation from an accredited graduate seminary, for example.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh? They all require graduation from an accredited graduate seminary, for example.

They do?

 

[sojourner]

They do?

RCC, EO, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, UCC, DOC, Nazarene, American Baptist, Southern Baptist, AOG, And others all require a seminary degree for ordination. I know without a doubt the Anglican, Lutheran, and DOC require mental and physical health screening, and criminal background checks. I imagine the others do too.

 

[InChrist]

The bible is quite clear-- even Jesus made remarks about avoiding hell. That whole it's better to rip your eyeballs out, or cut off body parts, lest you end up in infinite torture for all eternity.

Torture is always immoral. Thus? Even Jesus was immoral. The entire christian narrative, in fact: Inherited "sin" is immoral.

It wants to call innocent babies, "sinners" just for being born.

But in your Special Cherry-Picked Condensed Bible©, none of that is in there. AmIright?

Jesus came, warned people, and gave His life to save people from being separated from God forever. There is no where in the Bible that indicates God tortures people or has any desire to see people tortured. The word in the scriptures is "tormented", not torture. God created humans being to live, breath, move, and have our eternal lives with Him existing in perfect love, joy, peace, and beauty. Existence apart for God's life-giving Presence will be torment. Self-inflicted torment ... NOT God's desire for anyone.

If you read the account Jesus gave of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) there is no hint of the rich man in torment saying that it is wrong, unfair, or immoral. Instead, he wants his brothers to be warned.

"No one who spends eternity in the Lake of Fire (and many will) can blame God. They will have sent themselves there. In love, God designed man so that His love would not be "an extra" but as spiritually essential to life as water is physically essential. The analogies of water and thirst are used repeatedly in Scripture: "My soul thirsteth for God" (Ps:42:2); the rich man in hell likened his torment to thirst, begging for a drop of water on his tongue, saying, "I am tormented in this flame" (Lk 16:24). It is obvious that he didn't mean physical water, a physical tongue (his body was in the grave), or a physical flame, but something even more real.

The rich man was suffering from the spiritual thirst that sin's separation from God has brought and that Christ came to quench. But he had rejected Christ, trying to find satisfaction in food, sex, wealth, possessions, position, etc. Jesus told the woman at the well, "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst," and He said to the Jews, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (Jn:7:37). The final invitation in the Bible is "whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Rv 22:17). Clearly, such passages refer neither to physical thirst nor to physical water. Spiritual thirst results from sin's separation from God. Most people foolishly seek to satisfy that thirst with things of this world. Those who seek after God find true satisfaction in Christ. The central feature of heaven is "a pure river of water [obviously not physical] of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rv 22:1)."
Question: How can God send the overwhelming majority of humanity into everlasting conscious torment?

 

[leroy]

Do I have to repeat what I said about protected groups?

Yes a direct yes/no answers would be grate

Should a baker be free to deny a service to the CEO of McDonalds? This would be a deal among individuals


Pretend that a gay night club desires a cake to celebrate its anniversary; the baker denies the service because he considers that the business is immoral. (this deal would be a business to business deal) should the baker have the right to deny the service?

 

[leroy]

Why not? The baker isn't being paid for his opinion, his moral beliefs nor his religious beliefs. He's being paid to make a cake. If a person sets up a bakery to sell baked goods to the public they're agreeing to do so without discrimination along protected characteristics. Why do you believe a business owner should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to act above the law?

I am not saying that the baker should act against the law; I am saying that the law most allows bakers to deny the service if he considers that he has a moral reason for doing it.

I have no Idea on what the law says, but in my opinion owning a business shouldn’t necessarily imply an obligation to sale products to everyone.
......................
Sure I agree you are suppose to respect the law, even if you don’t like it, if the baker refuses to sale products to gay people an the law says that he is obligated to do it, he is most do it

 

[leroy]

Why not? Because you believe businesses have rights over consumers?

Do you not agree that consumers have rights?

Well if consumers have the right not to buy products from companies that they consider inmoral, why can’t business owners deny products to consumers that they consider inmoral?

 

[Shad]

Well if consumers have the right not to buy products from companies that they consider inmoral, why can’t business owners deny products to consumers that they consider inmoral?

This comparison is flawed. A person that does not patronizes a business is not a customer from the start. They are no longer even potential customers. The business in this case has a patron thus customer who is denied a service during a business contract. Also there are no laws forcing anyone to become a patron of a business such as a bakery while there are laws regarding conduct of a business.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I am not saying that the baker should act against the law; I am saying that the law most allows bakers to deny the service if he considers that he has a moral reason for doing it.

Business owners can refuse goods/services to people but not on the basis of certain protected characteristics. Sexual orientation & gender identity is covered by this which is why this baker is in hot water.

I have no Idea on what the law says, but in my opinion owning a business shouldn’t necessarily imply an obligation to sale products to everyone.

The whole point of a business is the sale of goods and/or services to the public without unlawfully discriminating.

Sure I agree you are suppose to respect the law, even if you don’t like it, if the baker refuses to sale products to gay people an the law says that he is obligated to do it, he is most do it

That is what has happened. By refusing to provide the cake to a customer on the basis that they're transgender the baker broke the law.

 

[leroy]

Business owners can refuse goods/services to people but not on the basis of certain protected characteristics. Sexual orientation & gender identity is covered by this which is why this baker is in hot water.

Religious believes are also suppose to be protected, according to his religion (his personal interpretation of Christianity) gay weddings are morally wrong.

Talking about sexual orientation: If a baker refuses to bake a cake that’s spells “I am proud of being a pedophile” nobody would argue that the baker has the obligation to serve this client.

*note that a pedophile is not necessary a rapist, someone can in theory feel attracted to little girls without molesting them

Why not keeping things simple and argue that all business owners should have the right accept or deny any service that they wish.

The moment in which you include “protected groups” you allow for all sorts of cracks and ambiguities in the law making the law fundamentally useless.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Headdesk

 

[dianaiad]

You can’t be forced to do something you do voluntarily. He always has the option to find some other line of work. It’s not like he’s been conscripted into the army to make cakes.

Slaves, too, could always refuse to do what their masters told them to do, if they were willing to accept the consequences.

Do you really believe that the consequences for refusing to bake a cake for an event that violates one's religious beliefs should be the complete loss of one's livelihood?

Remember: we ARE talking only about someone who would bake a cake for, or 'shoot' (in the case of a photographer) any OTHER event or occasion for this gay couple, even if that event was a celebration of something about being gay. It is specifically the wedding that is the problem.

Why is it permissible for that gay couple to be able to utterly ruin someone...to intimidate and extort someone into violating his own religious beliefs because they think that THEIR rights to force him to do this supercede his to say 'no?'

Would you be as determined to take your stand here, if the event were an orgy practiced in the service of a different god? Orgies are not illegal, btw.

In fact, they never have been, even when gay marriage was. However, nobody has ever given a service provider grief over saying 'no, thanks' and refusing to cater, bake a cake for, or otherwise aid in such events.

............and remember here, before any of you start getting insulting again: I would bake the cake. I have done so. I helped my daughter, a professional photographer, "shoot" a gay wedding. It was fun and I'd do it again in half a heartbeat. *I* may not believe that the couple is 'married' in the religious sense, but they think they are and it is what they think that counts.

I personally don't see why my beliefs should affect them....but if a gay couple came to me and started spouting about how the law said I HAD to do this, and that if I didn't I'd be labeled a bigot and I would get sued, they could whistle for their cake.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Slaves, too, could always refuse to do what their masters told them to do, if they were willing to accept the consequences.

Do you really believe that the consequences for refusing to bake a cake for an event that violates one's religious beliefs should be the complete loss of one's livelihood?

Remember: we ARE talking only about someone who would bake a cake for, or 'shoot' (in the case of a photographer) any OTHER event or occasion for this gay couple, even if that event was a celebration of something about being gay. It is specifically the wedding that is the problem.

Why is it permissible for that gay couple to be able to utterly ruin someone...to intimidate and extort someone into violating his own religious beliefs because they think that THEIR rights to force him to do this supercede his to say 'no?'

Would you be as determined to take your stand here, if the event were an orgy practiced in the service of a different god? Orgies are not illegal, btw.

In fact, they never have been, even when gay marriage was. However, nobody has ever given a service provider grief over saying 'no, thanks' and refusing to cater, bake a cake for, or otherwise aid in such events.

For the nth time... if the baker doesn't provide ANY orgy services, that's fine. The problem arises if the baker provides orgy services to people from one group, but not to another.

I look forward to your next overwrought, overly contrived example to explain the same point again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Slaves, too, could always refuse to do what their masters told them to do, if they were willing to accept the consequences.

Not quite the same thing. "Not selling cakes" is not a punishment.

If his conscience won't allow him to sell cakes ethically, that's his problem to solve. It's not reasonable to put his ethical burdens on his customers.

Do you really believe that the consequences for refusing to bake a cake for an event that violates one's religious beliefs should be the complete loss of one's livelihood?

Changing careers is not "the complete loss of one's livelihood."

Remember: we ARE talking only about someone who would bake a cake for, or 'shoot' (in the case of a photographer) any OTHER event or occasion for this gay couple, even if that event was a celebration of something about being gay. It is specifically the wedding that is the problem.

Why is it permissible for that gay couple to be able to utterly ruin someone...to intimidate and extort someone into violating his own religious beliefs because they think that THEIR rights to force him to do this supercede his to say 'no?'

Would you be as determined to take your stand here, if the event were an orgy practiced in the service of a different god? Orgies are not illegal, btw.

In fact, they never have been, even when gay marriage was. However, nobody has ever given a service provider grief over saying 'no, thanks' and refusing to cater, bake a cake for, or otherwise aid in such events.

This case is a bit of a frivolous example of a general principle that often has more severe consequences. The harm of allowing business people to unethically impose their religion on others is more apparent if we consider cases like, for instance, a landlord who refuses to rent an apartment to an unmarried couple or a doctor who refuses to provide a reasonable standard of care for religious reasons.

Yes, nobody will die from going without a birthday cake, but the same concerns apply.

 

[dianaiad]

Not quite the same thing. "Not selling cakes" is not a punishment.

If his conscience won't allow him to sell cakes ethically, that's his problem to solve. It's not reasonable to put his ethical burdens on his customers.


Changing careers is not "the complete loss of one's livelihood."

In what alternate reality do you live where that would be true?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what alternate reality do you live where that would be true?

Where what would be true?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How can one consider a human being to be immoral, just because they want a wedding cake?

How, indeed. I agree with your questions, here.