Gay Wedding Cake Heads To Supreme Court

Submitted by: 5cats 1 week ago in News & Politics


It is finally time for the Big Show!

In the red Corner we have a baker who didn't want to make a gay-themed cake (before Gay marriage was legal in that state) because it opposed his religious beliefs.

(Should the government be able to force people into violation of their beliefs?)

In the Blue Corner we have a gay couple who wanted a fancy cake.

(Do they have a right to identical service? Even on a custom order?)

Note that the baker never refused service to anyone, just refused a custom order theme cake. Keep in mind that there have been many rulings about similar things:

"Kao said it is fundamentally different to force Phillips to create a specific cake expressing a celebration of a wedding that he considers immoral. She said it is similar to a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in 1995 that organizers of the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston had the right to exclude an LGBT group.

Kao said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, itself, has ruled that a black baker could not be compelled to make a cake for the Aryan Nation and a Muslim cake artist could not be forced to bake a cake denigrating the Quran."

Sounds like another win for the Blue Corner is in the workings. Can anyone here support forcing Muslim bakers to make a cake featuring a burning Koran on it? Or the 'Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" cake? (It was on IAB Before.)
There are 83 comments:
Male 1,082
For those of you still following this, the original petition to the SCOTUS is here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf

The argument audio will be posted here sometime Friday 12/8:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

If you've never listened to argument audio before, it's pretty interesting because of the way the Justices interact with the lawyers - not like the typical courtroom you're used to seeing on TV.

If you really want to dig deeper, scotusblog.com lists lots of coverage about this case (and of course other cases) including amicus briefs here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

Have fun!
0
Reply
Male 40,580
Gay wedding cakes are gateway confections that lead to other homo foods

 like cupcakes which we all know are just gay muffins.
0
Reply
Male 15,408
Regardless of the law, the baker is being a dick. Jesus' message was "Don't be a dick" so it's not very Christian.

Homosexuality is mentioned only thrice in the New Testament directly or obliquely, and by apostles, never quoting Jesus, who never spoke of it, but referring to Old Testament laws, which Jesus made a point to say could be stupid such as picking corn on the Sabbath.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
Draculya But this is not about homosexuals or homosexuality: it is about forcing someone to disobey their personal beliefs under threat of prison.
Yes, homosexuality is not forbidden in the NT, but neither is it 'allowed' there. All the rest of the NT is about being a happy, healthy heterosexual.

And Jesus kicked the money-changers (racketeers) out of the Temple, he beat them with a whip, all their guards too, by himself. :p They were sinning, breaking a Commandment and desecrating Holy Ground. He didn't always turn the other cheek eh?
0
Reply
Male 161
5cats Anime is also not forbidden in the NT, but neither is it 'allowed' there.

Learn straw-man fallacy - I have been telling you this for 3 years. You still haven't learned it. Jesus. Learn a book, man. Just one. Make one bit of progress in 3 years, why don'tcha?

We do not "force people to disobey their personal beliefs" under the threat of prison. That is a straw-man (sigh). You can believe whatever you want. We do force people to ACT A CERTAIN WAY about those beliefs under the threat of prison ALL THE TIME! Personal beliefs can infringe on others' freedoms or discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or orientation. ACTIONS. CAN. NOT.

I want to punch you in your stupid face. I think it would be good for you. That is my belief. And I can believe that all day long, legally. But guess what, dumbass, I can't do it - because that is harmful to you. The right for me to swing my fist stops at your face. The right to treat people a certain way stops at discrimination. RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE IRRELEVANT.

This really is not difficult, you are just acting obtuse - as always. 

The Bible is morally unsound, and its words are morally irrelevant to the conversation. NT or OT. 
0
Reply
Male 41,611
It is possible that Anthony Kennedy (most likely the one to decide the Gay Cake ruling) will have his own words in previous rulings to go by:

"In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs."

That was about the Gay marriage ruling, it sure sounds like it applies to the Baker, not the accuser.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/the_gay_marriage_ruling_supports_the_baker.html
0
Reply
Male 1,082
Since everyone is having fun with hypotheticals, here's one from Justice Alito:

"JUSTICE ALITO: So if someone came in and said: I want a cake for -- to celebrate our wedding anniversary, and I want it to say November 9, the best day in history, okay, sells them a cake. Somebody else comes in, wants exactly the same words on the cake, he says: Oh, is this your anniversary? He says: No, we're going to have a party to celebrate Kristallnacht. He would have to do that?"
0
Reply
Male 41,611
nettech98 Yup, if it applies to one group or religion? It applies to all of them.
0
Reply
Male 4,211
Christian conservatives repeatedly aped "If we let a man marry a man, next thing we know we'll have to 'tolerate' pedophiles.  Well sure as shit, just 2.5 years after legal gay marriage, the GOP and evangelicals are happily supporting a pedophile.

Maybe they knew all along?
0
Reply
541
I am happy for homosexuals not to be a protected class, but only if churches also give up their protected status as well. No more special tax deals. No more representation than any other social organisation.  No more swearing on the bible for courts.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
I must say how pleased I am at how everyone is actually talking about the subject!! :-)

This is a VERY important case, I think, with wide-reaching ramifications! Lets hope the Supremes get it correct, eh?

Legalize Catgirls!! >^..^<
-1
Reply
Male 1,082
I encourage everyone to read the transcript of today's argument:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

There are some interesting hypotheticals posed, and I'm sure you can come up with your own....

The argument audio will be posted on Friday at the Oyez Project.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
nettech98 Couldn't get through the whole thing, but what I did get through was very interesteing.  I like Justice Sotomayor's points around pages 30-33 where he is talking about what if the cake shop was in a remote military base and there was only one other cake shop and both refused to make cakes for gay weddings.  Now gay people in the area do not have the ability to have their wedding the same as a straight couple.  This is wrong and the reason for the laws that say you can't refuse service to a protected class.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
waldo863 Yeah it's the argument that if you can get the same service elsewhere, then it doesn't matter.

Justice Sotomayor is female: Sonia.

The audio - which is way better than reading a transcript - will be available here tomorrow:  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

Then you can put names with faces and voices.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
nettech98 Thanks dude, nice link!
This is a very important case! A lot of the SJW's power comes from being able to force people to obey them even though they have no legitimate political or even moral status. But their rules only apply to those they select: they are fascists and everyone knows it. Hopefully this will put an end to the SJW's reign of terror...
But I doubt it :-p


0
Reply
Female 36
just a stupid argument.  why walk away from commerce?  if it were me and i was able to serve the gay community with a wedding venue, doing wedding arrangements, invitations, performing legal marriages, etc., i would do it in a heartbeat.  money's money.  i don't care who your particular boo is; not my business.  as long as the check clears, i'm cool.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
chickenfarts Make a huge swastika cake for the Nazis, be sure to hand out business cards saying you did so... yes it sounds absurd but there's no end to the slippery slope.

It is about forcing people to obey your will against their beliefs. If a Muslim doesn't have to make a Koran-burning cake? Why should a Christian be forced (keyword!) to make one he morally disagrees with? Why should anyone?

You're fine with it, and that's called freedom :-) But should your beliefs be imposed on others against their will?
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats Last I checked, Nazi's are not a protected class, gays are.  Also, how is making this cake against his beliefs?  No one is making him marry a guy, just make a damn cake.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 Gays are set above the rest of American Citizens?? With special rights and privileges other lawful citizens don't have? DO Tell! :-O
I think the whole point is that gays are NOT given rights which ALL other Americans don't have. Namely: the right to FORCE someone else to do something they don't want to do. Governments can do that, sort of, with strict limits. But for one citizen to do it to another is... questionable at best.

Last time I checked? Nazis were a minority in... well everywhere! Are you opposed to "minority rights"? lolz!
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats that depends on if it's a protected minority or not.

Since you brought Nazi's in this, let's try this.

A Mixed Couple, Black and White, goes to a bakery that the White one has shopped at for years.  Let's say the owner of that Bakery is a Nazi.  White person goes to get cake made and wants the top of the cake to be a black person and a white person.

Can the Nazi refuse the sale?  Nope.  He must make the cake.  He is choosing to refuse service based on the fact that it is a mixed couple.  Black people are a protected class so he is not allowed to discriminate against them that way.

Do you get it now?
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 There's laws against discrimination based on race, and no religion I've heard of does it, so it is different. I get what you're saying though, but really? The Nazi should be 'allowed' to discriminate and everyone should then shop elsewhere.

The second part of this is that various other groups (Muslims specifically) already have a right to not do that sort of thing, but somehow Christians don't have the same right?
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats No, that's not what I am saying.  The Nazi should not be allowed to discriminate against a mixed race couple because they are a protected class.  That Nazi should be forced to make the cake depicting a mixed race marriage.  The Christian should have to do the same for the gay cake.

The Muslims have the right to not have to do that sort of things because the people who want cakes that are against the Muslim religion are not a protected class.  No one should have to make a Nazi Swastika Cake or a something speaking out against the koran because Nazi's and Koran hating groups are not protected classes.  Blacks and gays ARE protected classes.  Does that make sense yet?

All I am saying is that you should have to make stuff for protected classes.  If they are not a protected class, then you don't have to do it.  It's really that simple.  We as a country voted on and made gay marriage legal.  They became a protected class long before that as well.  You can not discriminate against a protected class.  The ONLY reason this guy did not want to make the cake was because they were gay.  If they were a straight couple, he would have had no problem making them the cake.  The ONLY reason he is refusing the cake is because they are gay and gays are a protected class so he broke the law.  It doesn't get any simpler than that. 

Unless you are saying that you think ANYONE should be able to refuse service to gay people, your argument is pretty much invalid.  You can't say restaurants have to serve gays but cake shops don't.  That's ludicrous.  If this cake maker has the right to refuse service to gays, then if I have a restaurant and they want to have a birthday dinner at my restaurant, I also have the right to refuse them service.  If I own a bar and they want to come with a group of friends and get sloppy drunk in recognition of gay pride day, I would be able to refuse them service.  Neither of those scenarios make any sense, so the cake maker one does not either.  Same with the Nazi Baker refusing to make a cake for a black wedding.  If he should have to make them a cake, so should the christian baker have to make a cake for gays.

The majority of our country decided that gays are a protected class and they can not be discriminated against.  IF this baker does not want to serve protected classes, then he did not have to go in to business.  He could have worked for someone else and then chosen not to make that cake and make someone else that works there make it.  Instead, he chose to go into business for himself, so he has to follow the laws that a business has to follow.  It was HIS choice to go in to business, not the gay couples.


0
Reply
Male 1,284
chickenfarts pretty much.  Add to the fact that he says it's against his religion yet his religion tells him to judge not and really, he's the one that's violating his own religion.  
0
Reply
Male 55
waldo863 He isn't judging anyone. He is choosing to not take part in their "sinful" celebration. They were regular customers.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
bubba5658 and who is he to judge what is or is not a sin?  Is he God?  Is he Jesus Christ?  Then nope, he can not decide if it is a sin or not.  That would be making a judgement.
0
Reply
Male 55
waldo863 I think he reads the bible
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 That's excessively overly simplistic... his religion tells him not to SIN ok? Or to help those who willingly sin too.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats Actually, it clearly says judge not lest ye be judged.  It also says treat others how you wish to be treated.

Let's think of it this way.  What if the only cake shop in town was run by a gay person and that gay person decided to not make cakes for straight weddings.  Now this guy goes in there.  Would he want to be refused service?  I seriously doubt it.  So he should not refuse them service either, by his own religion.

Seriously, if you read the transcript above, I think that's one of the best points made.  What if they were in a remote small town or remote military base and there was only one cake shop and that cake shop refused to make cakes for gay weddings.  Now gay people do not have the ability to attain what everyone else in that city/base does, so they are protected in this case IMO.  You can't refuse service to someone based on the race/gender.  Sorry, the laws simply say that you can not.  The bible also says to follow man's law:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/obeying_mans_law
So he is violating that by not following the law that says he can't refuse service to a protected class, which gay marriages are.

A cake is not speech.  A cake is not a statement.  When a cake maker makes a cake for a funeral that says sorry for your loss, is the message from the baker or the person who bought the cake?  They are not putting any words in his mouth or forcing him to believe or say something he does not believe.  
1
Reply
Male 55
waldo863 Only if man's law doesn't contradict God's laws
0
Reply
Male 1,284
bubba5658 and it doesn't.  Please show me where in the bible that it says you are supposed to refuse service to sinners.
0
Reply
Male 55
waldo863 Then I open up a shop in the same town and make a fortune on all the folks that he doesn't want to serve. I love America.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 He should find a gay person to put the writing on the cake. The baker never refused the cake, just the writing (decorations) on it.

Fictional, imaginary scenarios are worthless: a distraction to the point:

Can one citizen FORCE another citizen to do something against their wishes?

Yes! Yes you CAN legally refuse service! But you'd better have a VALID reason for it, eh? If the KKK (for example) walked into a Black Church one Sunday? You can bet your ass they'd get thrown out pronto! Thus refused service. And rightfully so. No pun intended... :-O

A cake is artistic expression, several judgements have already set that legal precedent. And Muslim bakers are NOT required to make cakes defiling the Koran, that too is already legal precedent... it's right there in the post dude...

0
Reply
Male 55
5cats If the KKK walked into my church, they would be overcome with love. Not sure where you go to church.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats That is not a PAID service.  It's a different type of service, that doesn't even make any sense.  Also, the only reason they would likely be there would be to piss people off.  A clear disruption of the public.  Entirely different matter.

As for Muslim bakers not being required to make cakes defiling the Koran, well, again, people wanting to defile the Koran are not a protected class.  Gay people ARE a protected class.  This is not that hard to understand.
0
Reply
Male 40,580
now THIS is a gay wedding cake

2
Reply
Male 8,203
5cats to your example of Adolph.  The father and mother were Nazi's naming all their kids after Nazi's.  There is a line there, also as a side note he lost custody of his children.  They were taken by the state of Pennsylvania. 
0
Reply
Male 41,611
normalfreak2 And... the cake was refused. Should that baker have gone to jail then?? All the rest of what you said is irrelevant, ok? Is it illegal to write the words "Adolph Hitler" now? Or did the baker have a legal obligation to make that cake? That is the question here...
Oh excuse me, the CSIS are knocking, brb! ( I wrote the words Adolph Hit...)
0
Reply
Male 8,203
5cats Technically as long as it was Happy Birthday Adolph hitler and nothing else, I don't believe they should be able to be denied.  If the parents wanted Swasticka's and other material on the cake I think they are fully able to say the design is artistic but we can bake you a cake.
0
Reply
Male 287
I don't know the full story, but it seems like the baker sold wedding cakes until a gay couple came in, and then suddenly, he only sold heterosexual wedding cakes.
0
Reply
Male 55
cheeseb Actually, the baker sold many items to the couple. He never refused to sell any of the items to anyone no matter what their race, color, etc. It was a custom order request. He has also refused cake requests that had derogatory messages about gay people. He has always run his business that way.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
bubba5658 Correct, and that's something the MSM deliberately refuses to say. The facts do not matter to them, only the meme: gays good! Christians bad!

Of course the Supremes (usually) look at facts not hysteria, so there is hope that justice will prevail!
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats Does it really matter how many times he served them before?  He is now refusing service to a protected class because they are a member of that protected class.

I mean, saying it's ok because he served them a bunch of times before is like saying it's ok to walk out my front door and shoot my neighbor because I walked out and waved to him for the past 3 years.  What does the fact that I walked out and waved to him for the past 3 years have to do with the fact that I shot him?  Nothing at all.

Same thing here.  Just because he did not break the law the last thousand times they were in his shop does not mean he did not break the law this time.

0
Reply
Male 287
bubba5658 Would that not be a specific aim or message (a cake that had derogatory messages about gay people)? That, I understand, and I would support the baker's refusal there. A cake that conveys a specific message or call to action would be inappropriate to demand of someone who was not willing to participate. Wasn't there one in Ireland where a request was made for a baker to actually put "support gay marriage" on the cake? That's one I understand. That's a statement. That's a specific message. I think they should be able to refuse that.

What was the request for this issue w/ Phillips? Was it for him to make a cake that carried the message "celebrate gay marriage?" Like a cake to be used in a rally or political demonstration? Or was it a cake requested by a couple who is gay?

Then there is the argument that he is an artist. Is this an infringement on his religion or free speech? I don't think it is. He opened a shop and started a business and said "Come to me, ye betrothed, and I'll make you a cake." And then a gay couple took him up on that offer, and he moved the goal posts "...except for you. You guys just get cookies."

I don't know. I don't study law nor do I know the full story. But so far, I've heard no argument that convinces me the baker was within his rights to refuse service. Nobody is stopping this guy from going to church, praying in his shop, wearing "Jesus is the bee's knees" t shirts, etc. If one argument for his refusal is "There are plenty of options for the couple to get a cake, it's no big deal," then isn't an inverse argument "There are plenty of options for the baker to observe & practice his religion, it's no big deal?"
0
Reply
Male 55
cheeseb It was their request that he create a cake specifically for their gay marriage. Had they picked out a pre made wedding cake, and gone somewhere else to get the messages and the 2 grooms added to the cake, it would not be an issue.  
0
Reply
Male 4,211
Main problem is that too many Christians have no idea how to interpret the bible.

Either you ONLY heed Jesus and his commandments (all of which are quite reasonable comparitively) OR you follow ALL the old testament laws, dictates, and commandments (which would make you unfit for modern society).

Jesus wants you to: 
1: Love God
2: Love they Neighbor
3: Get Baptized
4: Do unto others (including do not judge)

THAT IS IT.  

Jesus is perfect and he fulfilled all the old laws (ergo the old testament and its laws do not apply to you), you do not have to pay them ANY MIND AT ALL.  

If more Christians UNDERSTOOD the old testament rules do not apply to them (you do not have to kill unruly and disrespectful children) then life would be so much easier. 

Had these silly ass bakers just did what Jesus asked them to do, they would have just made the cake and none of this would be an issue.
0
Reply
2,920
daegog You have netflix? If so, go watch 'how gay is pakistan?'. If cake is your biggest issue in life, consider your self lucky. 
1
Reply
541
skypirate Comparing against the worst possible example is a crap way to debate.
0
Reply
Male 4,211
skypirate If you live in pakistan, a gun is cheaper than a cellphone, dunno if anyone will refuse to bake you a cake if you are standing there with an AK while you place the order.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
daegog You are literally retarded now...

(Edit: maybe not? See below. I don't see how you comment here makes any sense at all though)
0
Reply
Male 1,284
daegog Them the guys in the back will just come out with their AK-47s.
0
Reply
Male 40,580
When in doubt change a variable or turn it around.

If a black and white couple wanted a cake, could the baker refuse them service based on skin colour not matching?  Same thing.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
Gerry1of1 If a Muslim refused to bake a cake depicting a burning Koran? You'd be OK with that or should he be forced to do it?

Muslim bakeries across the USA have flat-out refused to bake gay wedding cakes of any kind, yet none of them are getting arrested for it... none. What does that tell you?

0
Reply
Male 357
Gerry1of1 Your analogy isn't quite accurate. There is no religion that forbids black and white couples. The Bible does forbid homosexuality so he does have some footing. That said Christians are kind of ala carte with the Bible so he looses some footing there. 
0
Reply
541
taxidriver The bible also forbids wearing clothes of mixed fibers and eating shellfish, but those two items are routinely ignored by the "it's in the bible!" crowd.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
barry9a You confuse the Torah with the New Testament, dude...
0
Reply
541
5cats Leviticus 19:19 and Leviticus 11:9-12 aren't in the bible!?

They're from the same book as the prohibition on homosexuality. The bible is not just the New Testament.
0
Reply
Male 40,580
taxidriver There were many religions that disapproved of mixing the races. That's why it used to be illegal for blacks and whites to marry in most states.  But things change and this too shall pass.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
Gerry1of1 If a Black baker was told to bake a cake glorifying the KKK and depicting a lynching (of a black man specifically, the KKK lynched lots of whites too you know?) as a justified event, should he be forced to do so? Or should he have a right to refuse it?

Keep in mind that everyone will know he made it, it cannot be done secretly...
0
Reply
Male 40,580
5cats What do you people imagine goes on a gay cake?  It's two grooms or two brides. It will not have any depictions glorifying gay sex or lynching straight people.

Keep it real.
1
Reply
Male 1,543
Gerry1of1 Why are we fighting about if a cake is gay? A cake should be able to mix frosting with a cake of any persuasion. Or am I missing something here?
0
Reply
Male 40,580
scheckydamon Gay cake is a recruiting tool to attract more
fat cake eaters over to the other side.  Everyone knows that.

0
Reply
Male 41,611
scheckydamon No! Every cake should have one colour of frosting! Keep the colours pure!! (lolz)
0
Reply
Male 4,211
Gerry1of1 What if you change the variable this way.. 

A gay baker is asked to bake a cake that says "All homos should die in a lake of burning gasoline", should that baker be allowed to refuse to make it?
0
Reply
Male 1,284
daegog People that hate gay people are not a protected class, so you can still refuse service to them for any reason.  Gay people ARE a protected class, so you can not refuse them service based on the fact that they are gay.
0
Reply
Male 40,580
daegog And if that baker doesn't want to serve blacks? A white supremacists believes in segregation. But we're told his personal belief does not outweigh other peoples civil rights.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
daegog Wait, what? you get it?? I may have to take back my earlier remark :-/

If you changed it to "burn in hell for all eternity" rather than lake of gasoline? It would fit (some) Christian and (most) Muslim beliefs and be covered by freedom of religion... maybe?? Lolz! But your example works 'as is'.

So yeah, should a gay baker be forced to make that? This is the issue here.
0
Reply
Male 40,580
daegog Ah, well that makes it hate speech which is not legal so.... nope.

But to keep your parallel, no one asked for a cake that said "Christians must DIE a fiery death".
Just "Congrats Adam & Steve"
1
Reply
6
Gerry1of1  hate speech is not illegal. threats and speech that causes or creates a dangerous panic is. ie yelling fire in a crowded movie house.
0
Reply
Male 1,031
depends on your locale in this case hate speech is a non- issue.  Progressive countries have hate speech legislation

0
Reply
Male 4,211
Gerry1of1 Hate speech is a funny thing tho.  That christian baker thought "Congrats Adam & Steve" was hateful to his faith and spiteful to his god.  Not saying I agree, I just understand his thought process.
0
Reply
Male 40,580
daegog Well, truth be told I don't like hate speech legislation. You have the right to hate anyone.  I'm thinking of some relatives right now.
0
Reply
Male 8,203
daegog in that he lacks cognitive reasoning?
0
Reply
Male 4,211
normalfreak2 If a person is convinced his faith is under assault (for whatever reason) then reasoning no longer applies.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
daegog So now, not believing in the same thing as someone else is assaulting their faith?  I mean, believe what you want, but his own faith tells him to judge not lest he be judged so, in reality, he is the one assaulting his own faith by judging them.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 Forcing someone to act against their beliefs = assaulting them, yes.
He isn't judging anyone! He's simply refusing to enable and participate in the sinning. Sinning is... a sin! 

If you ask me to shoot heroin and I refuse? Am I judging you or acting to protect myself? (hint: the second one)

Love the sinner but hate the sin... you don't have to accept sinful behaviour just because you're a Christian. If someone steals from you? You can phone the cops! That's 'judgement' (stealing is wrong!) but it's perfectly legitimate! ;-)
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats No one is making him marry another man so it's not really the same thing as your heroin example.  He is not being forced to act against his beliefs in any way.  And yes, he is judging them.  He is basically saying I think what you are doing is wrong so I'm not gonna make you a cake.  That's judging them.
0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 He doesn't believe he should support or participate in a gay wedding (which wasn't "legal" at that time BTW, he didn't break any laws in that regard) because it's a SIN to do so. 

Forcing him to sin (against his will) is the issue here: that was his personal belief.

My heroin was about passing judgement, not the cake issue. Sorry if that wasn't clear eh? :-) But it still (kind of) applies if he was forced to help buy heroin for the junkie, or something. Can you force someone to assist in them sinning is the issue here, not the specific questions of gayness...

Yes he's judging them to be willful sinners and he wants no part of that. That's perfectly legitimate! Enabling others to sin isn't much different than doing the sin yourself.
0
Reply
Male 1,284
 He doesn't believe he should support or participate in a gay wedding (which wasn't "legal" at that time BTW, he didn't break any laws in that regard) because it's a SIN to do so.  
Ummm, how is he supporting it or participating?  He is not doing either of those things.  That gay couple is supporting him by buying from his business, not the other way around.  All he is doing is baking a damn cake and decorating it.  That is not a sin.  Please, show me a bible verse where it says it is.



 Yes he's judging them to be willful sinners and he wants no part of that. That's perfectly legitimate! Enabling others to sin isn't much different than doing the sin yourself. 

Except, it's not his place to judge them to be willful sinners.  That is not legitimate.  He can not place judgement on them for being sinners and he is not being forced to sin, just make a damn cake.  Actually, NOT making the cake is sinning due to this:
https://bible.org/seriespage/11-submission-civil-authorities-1-peter-213-17

First of all, there are laws that say gays are a protected class, so you are supposed to serve them.  By not serving them, you are breaking mans law. 

It also says honor all men.  It doesn't say only honor men who are not sinners, it says honor all men.  He is dishonoring them by refusing them service and also breaking the law, so double whammy on him.


0
Reply
Male 41,611
waldo863 How is it participating? He thinks it is, that's how. He should be free to judge for himself, yes?

Yes it is his place to judge if what they ask him to do is a sin or not. He's not trying to block their wedding, he's just not willing to participate in it. It isn't possible to 'not judge' anyone, and also no person is sinless: but the idea is to try to not sin, to not do it in the first place is better than seeking forgiveness after...
0
Reply
Male 1,284
5cats but it's not participating.  He's not going to the wedding.  His name is not on the wedding invitations.  His name is not hung on the wall or anything.  No one would even know who made the cake.  I can't tell you who made the cakes for the last 10 weddings I've attended, and one of those was my best friend.  If the person is not there at the wedding, they are not participating in the wedding.  

Just because he thinks he is participating does not make it so.  I can say I think the sky is purple with pink polka dots, not blue.  Does that make the sky purple with pink polka dots?  No, the sky is still blue no matter what I think.  Just ask any criminal if they think they are a criminal.  Most will tell you that they do not think they are a criminal.  Does that make them not a criminal?

What you think has little bearing on what the laws say.  I can say all day long that I think running red lights when there is no traffic is not against the law.  It does not change the fact that it is against the law.
0
Reply
Male 4,211
waldo863 I didn't say I agree with him.  I simply understand his thought process.  Christians are not exactly that hard to figure out most of the time.
0
Reply