"Actually Allowing Businesses To Refuse Service Based On Sexual Orientation"

[debbym]

Quote:

So, as a Christian I am to remain silent when I see my state or country legislating immorality? Didn't Jesus warn us about not passively standing by while a brother openly sins.

Jesus didn't have to speak condemnation to those in sin, His presence condemned sin through the power of the working of the Holy Spirit that was working in him and around him in every one who was around Him.

when he came into the temple his countenance brought condemnation and fear. you do not have to spell out what is sin, and when you do it is seldom the deeper picture of sin within a soul that God sees, and brings conviction to.

our pointing the finger is not the work of the Holy Spirit within ourselves or towards others.

Noah condemned the world, not by describing to the antediluvian world all their sins, but by loving, believing, and obeying God.

God's beauty of Character is what brings repentance and restoration, not pointing the finger.

Isaiah 58 is about holding the people of God accountable for their sin of misrepresenting the Character of God, and telling them to put away the pointing of the finger.

[bonnie]

Jesus didn't have to speak condemnation to those in sin, His presence condemned sin through the power of the working of the Holy Spirit that was working in him and around him in every one who was around Him.

when he came into the temple his countenance brought condemnation and fear. you do not have to spell out what is sin, and when you do it is seldom the deeper picture of sin within a soul that God sees, and brings conviction to.

our pointing the finger is not the work of the Holy Spirit within ourselves or towards others.

Noah condemned the world, not by describing to the antediluvian world all their sins, but by loving, believing, and obeying God.

God's beauty of Character is what brings repentance and restoration, not pointing the finger.

Isaiah 58 is about holding the people of God accountable for their sin of misrepresenting the Character of God, and telling them to put away the pointing of the finger.

I don't see any evidence of finger pointing by the baker in question.

What your post and that of others seem to be saying is in this world of tolerance we now live in,individual conscience and acting on that goes by the wayside.

The baker is not the one that rushed to the media,he simply was not comfortable providing what the lesbian couple wanted.

I seriously doubt at this time the baker will win legally and he probably knows his business is gone,yet he is willing to stand by his convictions.Tolerance dictates we cannot tolerate this mans decision without condemning him.

Explain to me how tolerance works. This is not a decision many here would have made,tolerance is demanded for a lesbian wedding,regardless of a conviction against participating in that.Total intolerance for a man that acted according to his conscience and is condemned.

Should I bend to the demands of those that are insistent I provide for their sick games? Do I have a right to my convictions? I am sure I will pay a similar price and I am willing to do that.That makes me an intolerant bigot?

[lazarus]

So, as a Christian I am to remain silent when I see my state or country legislating immorality? Didn't Jesus warn us about not passively standing by while a brother openly sins.

The problem is that many Americans have seen "Christian" Americans do precisely that. There is a well know history of Christians in this country supporting discrimination and even using the Bible to support it. The current crop of conservative Christians are vehemently against gay marriage but hardly ever talk about what the bible says about divorce. We know why of course.

Legislation cannot regulate the sentiments of the heart, it can only modify behavior. The spirit of discrimination and oppression that stalked the land for centuries didn't go away. It resides in the hearts of men and women having being passed from one generation to the next. It is simply waiting for the next opportunity.

I do not support gay marriage but I also do not support the cultural battle that is masquerading as a battle for Christian values.

[bonnie]

Legislation cannot regulate the sentiments of the heart, it can only modify behavior. The spirit of discrimination and oppression that stalked the land for centuries didn't go away. It resides in the hearts of men and women having being passed from one generation to the next. It is simply waiting for the next opportunity.

I do not support gay marriage but I also do not support the cultural battle that is masquerading as a battle for Christian values.

Because of past sins are we to conclude that the baker is masquerading Christian values and is really a hate filled bigot?

Is it possible that this is his personal convictions and doesn't deserve condemnation for that anymore than you would like to see condemnation of gay lifestyle?

We are all about not pointing fingers etc,what is happening with the tolerance towards this man and his convictions?

[fccool]

Because of past sins are we to conclude that the baker is masquerading Christian values and is really a hate filled bigot?

[bonnie]

No, we don't, and that's the point that you seem to be missing. There's no screen above his head clearly indicating his motives, and that part is irrelevant.

If this would be solely a Christian country, this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that we have to be able to co-exist with people of wide variety of faith in a functional way.

In that sense, our freedom is limited, even when it comes to religious freedom.

[debbym]

Quote:

What your post and that of others seem to be saying is in this world of tolerance we now live in,individual conscience and acting on that goes by the wayside.

The baker is not the one that rushed to the media,he simply was not comfortable providing what the lesbian couple wanted.

living in Christ, and in Christ's love for sinners, of every grade is separating sin from the sinner. God does not accept or embrace, or support or encourage sin, but he does accept and embrace and support sinners.

when Jesus received sinners, and ate with them, and loved them, and showed compassion and support towards them, he was able to do this without encouraging sin in any way. working with people does not imply you approve of their sin.

you seem to believe that is we accept people and provide services for them we are somehow condoning their sin. this is not right.

God gives you every heart beat, God gives you every moment of life is God condoning your sin?

providing business services is actually an opportunity to come in contact with others to communicate the character of God in your conversation and principles of living. we are not to hold ourselves separate from sinners, because we are also sinners and God himself did not hold himself separate from us. we are not pick and choose which kind of sin we will reject people for, or refuse services for. This is not the Spirit of Christ, but is common in Christianity today.

[CoAspen]

What is being missed by all of this by the 'christian' community, is the complete lack of support for the issue of discrimination by Christ. If He was running a business in the public domain, does anyone believe He would refuse to serve any sinner, regardless of what the 'sin' was?

The Bible was also used as a source of discrimination when bigotry and racial prejudice couldn't sustain it self during the long years of darkness in the south. History is rife with such use of the Bible and continues even with this issue. It is really an issue of the heart.

As you have mentioned,

Quote:

cultural battle that is masquerading as a battle for Christian values.

[bonnie]

living in Christ, and in Christ's love for sinners, of every grade is separating sin from the sinner. God does not accept or embrace, or support or encourage sin, but he does accept and embrace and support sinners.

[fccool]

Quote:

And this means what? That you must embrace and support their every demand as they define that?

No, that means that you provide the same service you do to everyone else.

There's a lot of "acting in accordance with your conscience" type of justification, without actually understanding the issue at hand.

If someone is a vegetarian, they can act in according with their conscience and don't eat or buy meat. They can avoid working at the store which would potentially violate their conscience... what they don't get to do is to sell vegetarian products to vegetarians only, because they believe that eating meat is morally wrong.

[fccool]

Quote:

Sorry,I will pick and choose not to provide and participate in someone's sick perversion. I do not need to do so to prove how christian ,tolerant or open minded I am.

Personally I cannot control all I sell to. I don't try to,when I am asked to provide for sick games that are described to me,I will risk condemnation by the "christian community"

You are conflating two different things. No one is legally forcing you to construct lewd material. You did refuse it, and it's perfectly legal to do so. If someone decides to protest against your business because of that... it's their choice. But they can't legally compel you to do something lewd or inappropriate.

That's not what's at heart of this discussing, and you keep bringing it back as though it is.

You can legally refuse to offer services that are "outside of the scope" of normal service that you generally do.

In case for baking the cake... it's not an issue that goes outside of the scope of the service. It's an issue of a very specific discrimination in a scope of service that's otherwise is open to general public.

I'm sure you don't find it fair, but I'm sure you'd find it useful every time you are buying things from people that are different than you are, and you can expect the same quality service in spite of you being different.

This is not about gays or gay wedding. Non-discrimination laws apply in a much larger scope of this issue... and if you make one group exempt, then all should be exempt.

Quote:

.Does he have a right to his convictions without the finger pointing that is taking place here.Some finger pointing seems appropriate.

For what he was willing to give up for his decision,you have to conclude this was not easily done.Yet,according to what I read here,his personal convictions should be set aside to fit the definition I see here of what it means to be a christian.

He doesn't set his convictions aside. He can choose a job that wouldn't potentially conflict with these, or make the service exclusive, in which case he can discriminate.

The whole point is that by following his convictions in that manner, he breaks the social contract, for which there is a penalty.

If there was no social contract, and every one would pick and choose based on their personal moral convictions, then there can be no consistent expectations in scope of commerce.

One can go to a store, and find that he can't buy food there, because the owner find it immoral to sell it to an overweight person. You may find this example preposterous, but that's the implications of "leave it up to personal convictions" when it comes to consistently expected NORMAL public service or products.

[fccool]

On top of that, it works both ways. A gay baker can't turn down heterosexual weddings. These apply to everyone and have broader scope of implications that are much more important than someone's personal feelings about a specific issue.

[bonnie]

You are conflating two different things. No one is legally forcing you to construct lewd material. You did refuse it, and it's perfectly legal to do so. If someone decides to protest against your business because of that... it's their choice. But they can't legally compel you to do something lewd or inappropriate.

[fccool]

Quote:

So what do you suggest? Can you force this man to make this cake? He is forced out of business.There isn't any shortage of businesses that will step in to take his place.

No one is forcing him to make a cake. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT. That's what he chosen as his commercial endeavor, and that's what he does anyway.

What he is forced to do is to uphold the social contract which all of us engage in. His business depends on the roads, the public services, and governmental protection that we all collectively pay into as a society. In return, we expect these services to be provided indiscriminately, if they are offered as such to the general public.

Quote:

Just as in my case,I can't prevent people from doing what they will but I can make the decision not to participate in something I find sick and degrading,

Again, you keep conflating two different things... You and the baker are not in the same category here.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but you don't have to provide services for any other reason for which business intends these services to be provided.

BUT

You don't get to discriminate on bases of gender, race, age, or sex. It's really as easy as that.

If a husband and wife asks me to videotape them having sex... I can legally refuse them my services. Yes, them having sex and videotaping it is legal, but that's not the scope of my services, and I periodically refuse such use of my services independent of gender, sex, or age.

That would be your case, so please stop casting yourself withing the same category here as the baker. It's not the same issue at all. The baker is not asked to bake the "homosexual sex act" cake. He is asked to bake a cake, which will be eaten by people like any other cake, and will be ingested via mouth.

If people weren't homosexuals, he wouldn't refuse them service... it's as simple as that. If you don't understand why this type of discrimination is dehumanizing and immoral, I really don't know what else to say.

Quote:

Yes he did and is willing to pay the penalty,so why does it bother you. Is it because he refuses to be forced by "tolerance"?

It doesn't I merely giving you a perspective that you lack when it comes to viewing the both sides of the argument.

You seem to only view it from "These people are not allowing people to act based on their religious convictions", but our religious convictions are already limited. Some people may have religious convictions against interracial marriages... they don't get to deny these couples service based on that religious convictions. Again, if you don't understand why it's immoral to do so, I can't explain anything further.

[CoAspen]

Good posts...thanks for taking the time to make it simple as possible. Although....it is a rather easy concept to understand....I thought.

[bonnie]

What he is forced to do is to uphold the social contract which all of us engage in. His business depends on the roads, the public services, and governmental protection that we all collectively pay into as a society. In return, we expect these services to be provided indiscriminately, if they are offered as such to the general public.

[bonnie]

On top of that, it works both ways. A gay baker can't turn down heterosexual weddings. These apply to everyone and have broader scope of implications that are much more important than someone's personal feelings about a specific issue.

Just so we are clear on this. The initial reason for this specific thread was the behavior being engaged in that was so loudly condemned by those "tolerant" groups. Refusing service to lawmakers. Makes perfect sense of course,you don't do things my way and you will pay.

Even earlier the gay bar was discriminating.......

The move isn’t the first time The Abbey has waded into state politics: when gay marriage was still illegal in California in May 2012, the bar announced a ban on all bachelorette parties, which it called an “offensive heterosexual tradition” that flaunts marriage inequality.

No hand wringing there. Tolerance is a street going one way.

I don't believe the baker was within his legal rights to refuse. Even tho he paid a stiff price for following his conscience,he is within rights to do that.He won't be allowed to do business but he is sticking by his convictions.

It may not be to your liking and he has undoubtedly paid the price for that,no one should feel so "tolerant" that they are going to force him to make this cake.

The gay bar seemed to have their "tolerance" accepted when they referred to bachelorette parties, as “offensive heterosexual traditions" Don't think they have been closed down because of it.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Tom, that is just classic liberal drivel . Is it loving to call sinful behavior honorable and acceptable when the Lord calls it an abomination? . Is it not more loving, to say "go and sin no more" rather than, "I am a tolerant, peace-loving person, so, I honor and approve of your lifestyle"? Why this unwillingness to call sin by its right name?

You are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, not just the ones that make you feel comfortable, loving and oh so tolerant.

WOW!! Epic fail! You are missing the point entirely! And incredibly sad to consider Jesus' own ideas as "just liberal drivel". Really!?!?!

Who is being selective here? You say live by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" and then rather pointedly seem to dismiss as "drivel" some of the most important parts directly from the Christ after who we as Christians identify ourselves!

Not to mention totally not getting the point of what this particular topic is about...

[fccool]

Quote:

I was not asked to make something that would resemble a "homosexual sex act". I have refused to provide items that I advertise for adults. It will come back to bite in the end,but I still will not be forced into dealing with these groups

And it's perfectly within your right to do that. It's not immoral to do so, and it's perfectly legal. We've already established that.

Quote:

If people didn't belong to these groups that engage in this infantile behavior I wouldn't refuse them service. Infantile behavior is not illegal.

You are likewise free to refuse service to infantile or rude people. Fair treatment is the entire point. You are well within your legal right to tell them to leave if they are turning what you do into some sick joke.

Quote:

I understand that what he did is more than likely not going to fly.I have said that more than once. You keep saying he can't break a social contract.Yes,he can.He did and closed his shop

If he doesn't want to provide the same service to everyone else he can close the shop and do something else, or only provide it to the "club customers"... no-one has a problem with that.

Quote:

Other than his right to try the court,what is it you would like the state to do to him to force him to fulfill his social contract.

Again, you don't seem to understand it. If you play a game of basketball, you play it by the rules. You don't get to make up your own rules because you feel like they work better for you.

You can make up your own rules, and play only with people who agree to play by these rules, but when you can't in the middle of a socially-accepted rules tell them that your rules are different.

It's the same with commerce. The baker can either serve the cake to everyone, or just to an exclusive club members... but it can't be both. These are the rules of commerce.

Quote:

He paid a price but if this is his belief and he was prepared to follow thru looks like you will have to "tolerate" his decision.

I don't really care if he bakes the cakes or not. I'm not saying "Make this person get back into business, and force him to bake cakes under threat of force". He can do whatever he wants within boundaries of commercial law that's there to protect us all.

[bonnie]

And it's perfectly within your right to do that. It's not immoral to do so, and it's perfectly legal. We've already established that.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

That's the entire point. We are not talking about lewd behavior you were referring to before, but providing services that you would otherwise provide anyway. A cake is a cake. There are no gay cakes, or straight cakes. It's an objective product.

Oh!

I am thinking right now of a bakery that specializes in making erotic baked goods.

It advertises its services to the public at large. But, product is explicit cakes.

[M. T. Cross]

A tattoo artist can refuse to tattoo racist or sexually explicit tattoos, but they can't refuse to tattoo a rose on someone because of religious, political, or sexual persuasion.

I can refuse to make a veal cutlet for a customer at lunch time because it is on the dinner menu. But I can not refuse to make them a burger because of religious, political or sexual persuasion.

I could go on and on.

The point is simple. You can set limits on the what kind of service you provide. You can enforce a code of public conduct within your place of business. There are boundaries to every business. But you can't refuse to provide services within those boundaries due to the customer religious, political, or sexual preferences.

It seems to me queers should want to hire people who want to serve their deviant lifestyle, not forcing artists to make sub-quality products for their "special" day.

The language in this post is vile beyond words. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[bonnie]

A tattoo artist can refuse to tattoo racist or sexually explicit tattoos, but they can't refuse to tattoo a rose on someone because of religious, political, or sexual persuasion.

I can refuse to make a veal cutlet for a customer at lunch time because it is on the dinner menu. But I can not refuse to make them a burger because of religious, political or sexual persuasion.

I could go on and on.

The point is simple. You can set limits on the what kind of service you provide. You can enforce a code of public conduct within your place of business. There are boundaries to every business. But you can't refuse to provide services within those boundaries due to the customer religious, political, or sexual preferences.

I know that. Have not disputed that. I am just curious where the tolerance is for those that disagree with you.

Those that do are considered less or less christian than those that want more tolerance.

I am not saying that anyone has to say this man was right within the law,but that his decision according to his individual conscience should be respected.

Tolerance should go both ways.

I don't know for certain but I think if this were a Muslim baker that refused the reaction would be different.

Just as a gay bar refusing bachelorette parties or the hairdresser that refused to cut the hair of a lawmaker that disagreed with "gay marriage" tolerance is never mentioned.

But you can't refuse to provide services within those boundaries due to the customer religious, political, or sexual preferences.

This is exactly where I find myself. How far it will go,I don't know.I do know I will not back water on this.

Does this make me less "christian" than those that "claim" Jesus would? Am I a hateful bigot because I want no part of that? The requests are not illegal or out of the bounds of what I provide.

[bonnie]

It seems to me queers should want to hire people who want to serve their deviant lifestyle, not forcing artists to make sub-quality products for their "special" day.

The language in this post is vile beyond words. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Naomi]

There is no doubt that the word “queer” has a complex history, that includes derogatory use by bullies and people who intend harm. “Queer” also has a long history as a term of re-empowerment by the LGBTQ community, as a unifying term that recognizes that many complex identities that make up the LGBTIQQ (and many other identities) community. In fact, over the last thirty years, “queer” has emerged in academia, politics, and even popular culture as a term of identity, inclusion, and more and more positive use.

Good Grief ... what do all of those letters represent? Why is this all necessary???

Gee