Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Couple A Wedding Cake WILL Have To Pay $135,000

[InChrist]

That's a step in the right direction.

Your link used the word manstealers in its translation. If I were condemning literal slavery, I would use a phrase like slave owner or slave master.

This is a typical example of scriptural vagueness. I'm wondering what we are discussing here, and what law these enslavers would be breaking. The Bible is clear about slavery being an acceptable practice and only condemns it in specific circumstances, meaning that it is not slavery per se that is forbidden, but certain practices such as beating a slave to death if he dies too quickly. It's not a violation of biblical law if a lethal beating results in a prolonged death.

The word translated as menstealers is the Greek ἀνδραποδισταῖς pronounced andrapodistais, and translated as kidnappers or menstealers in most translations of the Bible, although two agree with you and use the words slave traders (World English Bible) and slave dealers (Weymouth New Testament).

But let's call that scripture a condemnation of slavery, or at least one that could be read that way as at least two teams of translators did.

It's too weak to be meaningful. Anybody that wanted to own slaves could simply say that enslavers refers to kidnapping, or stealing a person, not buying a person, which it could be argued is the legal way to acquire a slave.

Or one could simply claim as so many do when confronted with inconvenient scriptures that the words are merely metaphor. Perhaps menstealers refers to women who steal men from their wives, or people who lead others to perdition. Greek has a word for slave: Strong's Greek: 1401. δοῦλος (doulos) -- a slave. One might ask why the scripture doesn't include the word for slave if it were was about slavery, and why there are so many scriptures instructing slave owners on the proper way to own a person.

What is lacking is a clear, simple, and unambiguous statement such as "Thous shalt have no slaves. Owning people is an abomination unto God."

And really what difference would that make? People choose to violate God's commands when it suits them no matter how clearly they are laid out in the scriptures.

The fact is that God has allowed humans a lot of freedom on this earth to do things which He does not condone because He is not micro-managing every detail, but instead giving room for individuals to seek His will and wisdom. The scriptures give enough instruction and information that anyone seeking to know and live within God's love would realize that owning another person as if they are property, treating them as less than human or mistreating others is outside the will of God.

Greek and Hebrew Words for “Slave”
The Hebrew and Greek words used for “slave” are also the same words used for “servant” and “bondservant,” as shown by the following table.

"It is important to note that neither slavery in New Testament times nor slavery under the Mosaic Covenant have anything to do with the sort of slavery where “black” people were bought and sold as property by “white” people in the well-known slave trade of the last few centuries. No “white” Christian should think that he or she could use any slightly positive comment about slavery in this chapter to justify the historic slave trade, which is still a major stain on the histories of both the United States and the UK."

"As we already know, harsh slavery was common in the Middle East as far back as ancient Egypt. If God had simply ignored it, then there would have been no rules for the treatment of slaves/bondservants, and people could have treated them harshly with no rights. But the God-given rights and rules for their protection showed that God cared for them as well.


This is often misconstrued as an endorsement of harsh slavery, which it is not. God listed slave traders among the worst of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:10 (“kidnappers/men stealers/slave traders”). This is no new teaching, as Moses was not fond of forced slavery either:


He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
(Exodus 21:16)"

Doesn’t the Bible Support Slavery?

 

[InChrist]

Since you bring up 1 Timothy:

1Timothy 4:1-5:


You are trying to prohibit marriage. Explain why this passage isn’t describing you.

I am not trying to prohibit marriage according to the definition of marriage according to God in the scriptures, so your the point you are attempting to make is invalid.

 

[columbus]

And really what difference would that make? People choose to violate God's commands when it suits them no matter how clearly they are laid out in the scriptures.

Rather like what happened to the racist Christians of the 60's and 70's, a large and growing number of Christians prioritize Jesus and Mt 22: 34-40 when the OT contradict it. I expect that will change even faster concerning homophobic bigotry.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not trying to prohibit marriage according to the definition of marriage according to God in the scriptures, so your the point you are attempting to make is invalid.

Some pretty serious mental gymnastics there. You ARE trying to prohibit marriage. Edit: you may think that the sorts of marriage you’re trying to prohibit displease God, but this doesn’t change the facts of what you’re doing.

Out of curiosity: do you also try to prohibit any foods? Non-organic foods, for instance? GMO foods? Foods with gluten?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not trying to prohibit marriage according to the definition of marriage according to God in the scriptures, so your the point you are attempting to make is invalid.

Do you even understand what the definition of marriage is in the Bible?

Some of those "marriages" look pretty good to me.

 

[SinSaber]

And yet bakers who refuse to put the Leviticus quote on a cake or make one that depicts the blue lives matter flag get off Scott free

Double standards anyone?

 

[Jesster]

And yet bakers who refuse to put the Leviticus quote on a cake or make one that depicts the blue lives matter flag get off Scott free

Double standards anyone?

If it's not on their menu, they don't have to sell it. They just have to sell what is on their menu to any customer willing to pay for it.

 

[SinSaber]

If it's not on their menu, they don't have to sell it. They just have to sell what is on their menu to any customer willing to pay for it.

Costum is always on the menu at a bakery.

 

[Jesster]

Costum is always on the menu at a bakery.

Depends on the costume and the bakery. Any bakery can limit their menu however they want. This applies to both sides of the argument.

 

[SinSaber]

Depends on the costume and the bakery. Any bakery can limit their menu however they want. This applies to both sides of the argument.

So you support a bakers religious liberty?

 

[Jesster]

So you support a bakers religious liberty?

I support everyone's religious liberty. We may just have a different view of what religious liberty means. Would you care to expand on what you mean so we can be on the same page?

 

[SinSaber]

I support everyone's religious liberty. We may just have a different view of what religious liberty means. Would you care to expand on what you mean so we can be on the same page?

I believe if someone can prove in their religious texts that they are being forced to compromise themselves they should have the right of refusal to participate.

However in terms of bakeries, I think it begins and ends at weddings and other such events only. Because, these create more of a statement than individual purchases or employment

 

[Jesster]

I believe if someone can prove in their religious texts that they are being forced to compromise themselves they should have the right of refusal to participate.

However in terms of bakeries, I think it begins and ends at weddings and other such events only. Because, these create more of a statement than individual purchases or employment

That depends on what their religious texts say. If it runs over another's legal rights, they can only push their beliefs so far. Otherwise they are free to exercise those beliefs as they wish.

In the terms of bakeries, which are open to the public, this means they can decide not to add rainbow cakes that may offend their religious ideals to their menu so long as that menu item is refused to everyone equally. However, they still have to sell what is on their menu to all customers regardless what their religious beliefs say about said customer. Even if this is a wedding cake, they still have to sell it. They just don't have to put decorations on it that they wouldn't sell to anyone else.

 

[SinSaber]

That depends on what their religious texts say. If it runs over another's legal rights, they can only push their beliefs so far. Otherwise they are free to exercise those beliefs as they wish.

In the terms of bakeries, which are open to the public, this means they can decide not to add rainbow cakes that may offend their religious ideals to their menu so long as that menu item is refused to everyone equally. However, they still have to sell what is on their menu to all customers regardless what their religious beliefs say about said customer. Even if this is a wedding cake, they still have to sell it. They just don't have to put decorations on it that they wouldn't sell to anyone else.

But, events are automatically unique situations because they have the provider doing something outside the norm. So day to day laws cannot apply

 

[columbus]

And yet bakers who refuse to put the Leviticus quote on a cake or make one that depicts the blue lives matter flag get off Scott free

Double standards anyone?

Honestly, I think that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad and intrusive myself.
But they are what they are, and bakeries are included. Including religion and orientation, but not Blue Lives Matter.
Tom

 

[Jesster]

But, events are automatically unique situations because they have the provider doing something outside the norm. So day to day laws cannot apply

What are they doing that's outside the norm? They are baking a cake just like other cakes they have made before. Does it matter what happens to it once it leaves their bakery?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But, events are automatically unique situations because they have the provider doing something outside the norm. So day to day laws cannot apply

Making a wedding cake doesn't mean you support the marriage. It means you made a cake because an order was placed at your business.

 

[InChrist]

Rather like what happened to the racist Christians of the 60's and 70's, a large and growing number of Christians prioritize Jesus and Mt 22: 34-40 when the OT contradict it. I expect that will change even faster concerning homophobic bigotry.
Tom

Oh....there's that loaded emotive language again: homophobic bigotry. Because someone has a different perspective is no indication they are afraid of homosexuals, a bigot, or that they don't treat all people, whatever they're sexual orientation with respect and kindness.

 

[InChrist]

Some pretty serious mental gymnastics there. You ARE trying to prohibit marriage. Edit: you may think that the sorts of marriage you’re trying to prohibit displease God, but this doesn’t change the facts of what you’re doing.

Out of curiosity: do you also try to prohibit any foods? Non-organic foods, for instance? GMO foods? Foods with gluten?

Actually, I'm not in a position make prohibitions on marriage, foods, etc. Dosen't mean I don't have my views, as I'm sure you and everyone does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh....there's that loaded emotive language again: homophobic bigotry. Because someone has a different perspective is no indication they are afraid of homosexuals, a bigot, or that they don't treat all people, whatever they're sexual orientation with respect and kindness.

You do realize that there is a tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality, don't you? So calling hatred of homosexuals "homophobia" may be quite accurate. Those people that do hate homosexuals and are latent probably have a fear of following their hearts.