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

[Mindmaster]

If we give religious exemptions to secular laws, then it's going to be our duty (or rather, the duty of the courts acting on our behalf) to sort all that out.

Personally, I don't want secular courts ruling on what is and isn't "proper" Christianity, but the way to avoid doing that is to just make everyone follow the same laws.

But, we could argue these laws are unconstitutional in the first place. I guess that's where we diverge in that I just think such mandates have no place in the secular space either. Just because it applies to everyone in general doesn't mean the protected rights need be thrown to the side. I disagree with nearly any concept Christianity believes in, but I know if their rights are signed away so are mine.

 

[Jainarayan]

However, don't shoot the messenger here. Obviously, I have nothing but despise for the entirety of Christian religion and the religion it branches from.

Not worry, I'm not. It was entirely rhetorical, just an opportunity to ask the question.

 

[Jainarayan]

Thankfully, it's not our duty to sort out the contradictions in their faith but whether they cherry pick our not is up to them in my view.

I agree in principle, but in practice, when they start selectively bullying people there's a problem. They need to be somehow shut down.

 

[nPeace]

It also forbids poly/cotton blends, shellfish and bacon double cheeseburgers. Now, I've gotten the retort "but in Acts ... Jesus said no food is unclean". Okie-fine, but he also said not one jot or tittle of the Law would be erased until Heaven and Earth pass away. So that means poly/cotton blends are still an abomination, as are planting peppers, tomatoes and squash in the same field. Millions of Italians (Catholics no less! ) are on the express to hell. My point is the cherry-picking and hypocrisy many "Christians" exhibit.

Jesus also said, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Was Jesus saying that a camel can pass through the eye of a sewing needle?

Jesus was using a hyperbole to make a point.
Consider what he said...
Luke 16:16, 17
16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. 17 Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled.

Did you notice the point he was making?
The Law and the Prophets were until John....

Since we know that heaven and earth will never pass away, then we can be confident of the law being fulfilled.
Matthew 5:17 Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.
...and he did.

The law was indeed fulfilled. Therefore, those listening to Jesus' words could be confident in any promise made by God, or Jesus.
Any future promise was sure.

So Jesus' hyperbole was powerful.
Christians are not under the Mosaic law.

 

[Mindmaster]

I agree in principle, but in practice, when they start selectively bullying people there's a problem. They need to be somehow shut down.

If they begin to bully and intimidate people, they're doing "The Lord's" work and undoing their own progress. Let them have at it, it'll be far less of an issue later.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jesus also said, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Was Jesus saying that a camel can pass through the eye of a sewing needle?

Jesus was using a hyperbole to make a point.

Yes, just like when I say if I win the lottery I will be out of this job faster than **** goes through a goose.

Christians are not under the Mosaic law.

A detail that seems lost on them.

 

[Koldo]

But, we could argue these laws are unconstitutional in the first place. I guess that's where we diverge in that I just think such mandates have no place in the secular space either. Just because it applies to everyone in general doesn't mean the protected rights need be thrown to the side. I disagree with nearly any concept Christianity believes in, but I know if their rights are signed away so are mine.

What right do you suggest is being 'signed away' ?
The right to discriminate against people... ?

 

[Mindmaster]

What right do you suggest is being 'signed away' ?
The right to discriminate against people... ?

If we lack the ability to discriminate against people at our whim entirely we also lose the ability to set our standards. Let's not forget the Civil Rights act doesn't just protect sex, race, and other such things it protects _religion_ as well. Where those two are at odds, I weigh on religion more because it is explicitly protected in the 1st Amendment while the others are not.

By 'signed away' I mean that this is an issue above the local/state level and something that must be weighed in at the Supreme Court or House/Senate. I think that the public needs to approve these changes via referendum not just one group or body. The rules need to serve the body of the people not specific protected groups.

 

[InChrist]

So he blatantly lied when he claimed that it was supporting a wedding by baking a wedding cake that violated his beliefs and that he would gladly make them a birthday cake. Such a shame that speaking untruths doesn't violate this man's conscience.

Was it just a birthday cake? The article reads..."She told employees it was to celebrate her birthday and the seventh anniversary of when she came out as transgender." Had this person simply called and ordered a birthday cake I doubt there would be an issue.

 

[Koldo]

If we lack the ability to discriminate against people at our whim entirely we also lose the ability to set our standards. Let's not forget the Civil Rights act doesn't just protect sex, race, and other such things it protects _religion_ as well. Where those two are at odds, I weigh on religion more because it is explicitly protected in the 1st Amendment while the others are not.

By 'signed away' I mean that this is an issue above the local/state level and something that must be weighed in at the Supreme Court or House/Senate. I think that the public needs to approve these changes via referendum not just one group or body. The rules need to serve the body of the people not specific protected groups.

How so ?
Please elaborate that thought.
What do you mean by 'set our standards', for instance ?

 

[Jainarayan]

Had this person simply called and ordered a birthday cake I doubt there would be an issue.

It is a birth of sorts.

 

[columbus]

Was it just a birthday cake? The article reads..."She told employees it was to celebrate her birthday and the seventh anniversary of when she came out as transgender." Had this person simply called and ordered a birthday cake I doubt there would be an issue.

I am totally with you.
Why would a queer ask for something that they know a bigot doesn't want to do?

The most plausible explanation I can think of is that the queer wanted to indulge their victimhood.
How about queers stop doing that. How about that?
Tom

 

[Mindmaster]

How so ?
Please elaborate that thought.
What do you mean by 'set our standards', for instance ?

I mean if your religious view prohibits having to serve (or in this case ACTUALLY cater) to someone else that is within your rights. Being compelled to do something you despise doesn't feel very 'free' to me. It's not like there is a shortage of other bakeries either in this particular case, either.

The issue in this case really isn't the obligation to serve people, but rather the bakery promised to serve them and didn't fulfill the contract between them and the customer. This will get you in trouble in any business, so it's not so much a rights issue as a breech of contract. Once you agree to take the money and do the task you have an obligation to complete it, you just can't back out. You can't modify this agreement after you take the money and the lack of understanding that is why they're wrong. It's not so much about religious rights in reality...

 

[Mindmaster]

What right do you suggest is being 'signed away' ?
The right to discriminate against people... ?

People typically look at discrimination through the narrow lens of something like race, sex, religion, etc... The reality is we all discriminate all of the time... Discriminating means we improve our quality of life by getting what we want, supporting what we believe, etc... by virtue of rejecting what we do not...

 

[QuestioningMind]

Was it just a birthday cake? The article reads..."She told employees it was to celebrate her birthday and the seventh anniversary of when she came out as transgender." Had this person simply called and ordered a birthday cake I doubt there would be an issue.

Yeah, just a birthday cake. If I have a birthday cake in which I also want to celebrate my 7th year of sobriety, it's STILL a birthday cake.

 

[InChrist]

Yeah, just a birthday cake. If I have a birthday cake in which I also want to celebrate my 7th year of sobriety, it's STILL a birthday cake.

No, it's not. It's a cake for celebrating two different events.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, it's not. It's a cake for celebrating two different events.

One of which is a birthday, making it a birthday cake. But of course what anyone may or may not choose to celebrate with the cake they buy is really irrelevant. It's nothing more than a pastry and any additional significance someone decides to place on that pastry is completely up to them. This baker is attempting to make himself far more significant than he actually is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's not. It's a cake for celebrating two different events.

Neither of which are anything illegal, and neither of which would require anything outside the company’s normal range of offerings.

 

[Koldo]

I mean if your religious view prohibits having to serve (or in this case ACTUALLY cater) to someone else that is within your rights. Being compelled to do something you despise doesn't feel very 'free' to me. It's not like there is a shortage of other bakeries either in this particular case, either.

The issue in this case really isn't the obligation to serve people, but rather the bakery promised to serve them and didn't fulfill the contract between them and the customer. This will get you in trouble in any business, so it's not so much a rights issue as a breech of contract. Once you agree to take the money and do the task you have an obligation to complete it, you just can't back out. You can't modify this agreement after you take the money and the lack of understanding that is why they're wrong. It's not so much about religious rights in reality...

The problem is: regardless of what you work with, there will be restraints on what you can do. It is part of the job. If you don't like the restraints you shouldn't work on that field. Nobody promised absolute freedom.

 

[Jainarayan]

No, it's not. It's a cake for celebrating two different events.

Who says? What's the statute? State, federal, local, what?