If your enemy asks for a cake, give them two...

[fccool]

I think the thing that bothers me here is the line drawn at what constitutes "participation" and where does it end on the "religious grounds"?

 

The issue here is that a lot of bigotry masquerades a religion in order to enjoy free expression.   If a black guy walked into a store... then what's the real difference between someone who religiously believes that that guy is subhuman, and shouldn't "participate" in "subhuman activities", and someone who doesn't want to participate in "immoral gay activities" like a gay "wedding"?

 

Secondly, what none of you mentioned here, and we've been over a thousand times on this forum, is that business is guided by commerce laws and doesn't fall into sphere of "personal belief".   On the personal grounds, you can refuse knitting a blanket that a gay or a black or an Asian person would want for some devious sexual activity.    You can refuse it, even as a private contractor.

 

But, when you open a store, and you are largely depending on the state to manage the rules and civility of commerce, when you ask for state to protect and enforce contract law... you are engaging in contractual activity not only with the state, but with the whole society. 

 

But.... but.... but.... but.... it's unfair.

 

No, it's not unfair .   What would be terrible and unfair is a factioned society that gangs up on "outsiders" and denies them things they deem "immoral".  People shouldn't use religion to masquerade their bigotry.   There're are obvious limits to religious expression, especially when it potentially creates a lot of discord in society and segments it.

 

That goes for Muslims too BTW.   It's sad that no-one filed a law-suit out of fear.

 

And thirdly, the point of the OP is completely ignored in a orchestra of hypocrisy!   Yes, we love you, and Jesus did turn water into a wine for a wedding full of sinners, but....  I have a lot higher standards of morality than Jesus.   I will stand my ground, along with my right to cheer for violent sports, and whatever other hypocrisy I want to nose-dive into, but to support two people commuted to each other in relationship in the midst of unfortunate circumstances of their psychological condition.... that's icky.... sorry....  IMMORAL !

[Dr. Shane]

Would they need to ask if the cake was to celebrate the birthday of the person they were cheating with?

 

 

I think what is more likely is a motel owner refusing to rent a room to a couple he or she knows is commiting adultry.  Should the strong arm of the civil government force motel owners to rent rooms to couples committing adultry?

 

As a note of clarification: I have not concluded the answer to my question.

 

I have been known, however, to bake cakes and pies for my neighbors.  If I had any known enemies maybe I could do that for them too.

[Dr. Shane]

I think the thing that bothers me here is the line drawn at what constitutes "participation" and where does it end on the "religious grounds"?

 

 

That is the question I wrestle with too.  As a society, we all agree that an adult buying alcohol for a minor is contributing to the deliquence of a minor.  So we have made that distiinction but how far does that go.

[bonnie]

That is the question I wrestle with too.  As a society, we all agree that an adult buying alcohol for a minor is contributing to the deliquence of a minor.  So we have made that distiinction but how far does that go.

What constitutes participation to one person is not necessarily what it means to someone else. It is a bit arrogant and judgmental for some to claim they know the motive is hate for refusing to bake a cake for a celebration of an event  God calls an abomination

Under the current reasoning of some the Muslim baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding,a muslim photographer should be forced to record a celebration he considers evil. Should a black baker be forced to provide a cake that says God bless the KKK. Should the Jewish baker be forced to provide a cake for a American Nazi  celebration. Both are legal org. in the US

Perhaps a cartoon character of Mohamed should be the theme demanded on a cake to celebrate

[B/W Photodude]

Liberals Are Distorting the Bible to Advance Their Political Agenda

 

This video takes an interesting look at the gay agenda and a shopowners rights to their practice of religion, among many other topics.

 

[fccool]

 

Under the current reasoning of some the Muslim baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding,a muslim photographer should be forced to record a celebration he considers evil. Should a black baker be forced to provide a cake that says God bless the KKK. Should the Jewish baker be forced to provide a cake for a American Nazi  celebration. Both are legal org. in the US

Perhaps a cartoon character of Mohamed should be the theme demanded on a cake to celebrate

 

First of all,  that's not even close to be a viable argument, because it assumes that people imply hate when they demand for contractual law to be upheld, and it equates actual hate groups like Nazi and KKK with homosexual preferences.  

Are equating homosexuals to be on the same level of the groups who actively persecuted them in the past?

 

Secondly,  "evil" is a relative position when it comes to religious preference, and that's precisely the issue.   You seem to misunderstand the difference between personal freedom and commercial freedom.   As a person, you can refuse whatever you want, you can discriminate against whoever you want, and within limits you can call whoever you want evil, and whatever you want evil.

 

 As a commercial vendor you are a subject to a commercial law, which exists solely to promote financial stability of any given state, and establish adequate clauses for escaping any given contract... of which contract with any given vendor and the Sate, and the State and all people and vendors is the very first contract you would engage in.

 

That's the conversation that's completely missing in cases like these, and that's A HUGE consideration of any viable lawyer and a judge who understand these issues.   Constitutional law applied to PERSONS and it has limited scope in the business relationships, which are governed by additional body of regulations and laws.  There are a lot of things that a business would be subjected to as a business that individuals in that business would not be subjected to.

 

You keep trying to make it a personal religious freedom issue, and it's a global contract law issue... which is the only reason cases like these can have any chance in court. 

 

 

But, that's not even the issue, since you switch the conversation to a false equivocation after this statement

 

What constitutes participation to one person is not necessarily what it means to someone else. It is a bit arrogant and judgmental for some to claim they know the motive is hate for refusing to bake a cake for a celebration of an event  God calls an abomination

 

 

Exactly!   And that's the very reason why we've had state-sanctioned discrimination laws in the past ... because of certain understanding of Biblical narrative, which labeled one group of people and their activities sub-human.  I'm talking about black people, of course.  And these people would be refused service in virtually any "white" establishments for the very same reason.   Sounds familiar?

 

There's this equivocation made when it comes to "God calls abomination" which is constantly inconsistent in its application.   God calls abomination a lot of things, gluttony of which is one.... which is quite ironic for a bakery, isn't it?  So, how is it that a baker can have no issue serving a cake to morbidly obese person, and consider it immoral to serve it for a gay wedding?  And it's just one of many examples

 

If we call it what it is, then most of the religious people pick and choose whatever religious clauses they see fit to apply to them in any given context.   That's the very reason why religion doesn't trump contractual law and why non-discrimination clauses and laws exist.

[fccool]

Liberals Are Distorting the Bible to Advance Their Political Agenda

 

This video takes an interesting look at the gay agenda and a shopowners rights to their practice of religion, among many other topics.

 

 

 

You keep up with the "liberal" labels as though it has any weight in the validity of your argument.    Is it that liberals are always wrong, or do you think that only liberals see the validity in orderly and limited non-discrimination laws, especially when it comes to a group of people who were forcefully castrated, jailed, forced to undergo electro-therapy all because they can't switch off being sexually attracted to their sex.   I guess God really hates their activities a lot more than how they are otherwise treated by "Christians"

 

Likewise, injecting a non-argument in this thread as though it's an actual argument ... come on, man.   That's not even an issue being discussed.

 

And I'm still waiting for a meaningful response to the OP, which is quite ironic when you think about the entire purpose of this thread was about the mode of disagreement as exemplified by the very person who the entire religion is named after.   Those things about God hating homosexuals are literally true.  The words of Jesus about dealing with certain issues, that has to be taken "in context" of all of the other verses where it says homosexuality is something God finds abominable and hateful

[B/W Photodude]

You keep up with the "liberal" labels as though it has any weight in the validity of your argument.

 

If you note the name of the video on YouTube, "Liberals Are Distorting the Bible to Advance Their Political Agenda" is the name of the video.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane asked, post # 27:

 

I think what is more likely is a motel owner refusing to rent a room to a couple he or she knows is committing adultery.  Should the strong arm of the civil government force motel owners to rent rooms to couples committing adultery?

 

How would a motel owner know that a couple was committing adultery?

 

Does this mean that a motel owner should require a marriage license for any two people who wanted to rent a room for the night?

 

In today's society, should there be a difference between a same-sex two persons and two persons of different genders?

 

I am thinking of a mother and son who travel together.  Should they be assumed to be committing adultery?   Should they be required to provide a birth certificate?

[fccool]

If you note the name of the video on YouTube, "Liberals Are Distorting the Bible to Advance Their Political Agenda" is the name of the video.

 

  Noted, but the same question would apply to the creator of the video, and I'm actually curious about your belief on this.   If this merely a "liberal agenda"?   Why wouldn't it be framed in the scope of disagreement of the present justice system?  

 

Likewise, in this scope, the label isn't really helpful, because in certain interpretation of the argument it can be viewed that racism, homophobia and discrimination to be "conservative agenda" .   Labeling anything "liberal" or "conservative" has very meaning or use when it comes to discussing viability and validity of any given argument.   It merely a very poor attempt to polarize the viewers and automatically associate any given argument with "you shouldn't be thinking like that if you are a conservative, because that's what liberals do".

[bonnie]

 

Exactly!   And that's the very reason why we've had state-sanctioned discrimination laws in the past  ... because of certain understanding of Biblical narrative, which labeled one group of people and their activities sub-human.  I'm talking about black people, of course.  And these people would be refused service in virtually any "white" establishments for the very same reason.   Sounds familiar?

 

There's this equivocation made when it comes to "God calls abomination" which is constantly inconsistent in its application.   God calls abomination a lot of things, gluttony of which is one.... which is quite ironic for a bakery, isn't it?  So, how is it that a baker can have no issue serving a cake to morbidly obese person, and consider it immoral to serve it for a gay wedding?  And it's just one of many examples 

 

If we call it what it is, then most of the religious people pick and choose whatever religious clauses they see fit to apply to them in any given context.   That's the very reason why religion doesn't trump contractual law and why non-discrimination clauses and laws exist.

 

I don't recall anyone claiming those that follow the gay lifestyle were subhuman. God never makes a negative reference to skin color or decided that was an abomination.

Who has placed you or anyone else in the exalted position of reading the heart of another so you know this is an act of hate? From all accounts those that have refused this service or performing the photography  have performed this same service to the same group same group in a walk in manner.They have not been barred,ridiculed or humiliated.

To disagree with anything the gay community demands is hate and is echoed here and elsewhere.

I am asked frequently to provide a product for gays and other groups.There requests are not illegal,but for me personally I believe it to be sick deviant behavior and will not do so. That is not hate.Those requesting have as much of a legal right to exist in their deviancy as I do. I simply am n ot going to do it. Yet I do business with many gays for legitimate need. It is not hate no matter how self righteous that makes the accuser feel.

Do you believe a Muslim baker should provide cakes for gay weddings? Do you actually believe that a Muslim baker would be successfully sued for refusing? Should a Muslim photographer be forced to record the events of a gay wedding? Would they be and is it hate or bigotry if and when they refuse?

[fccool]

I don't recall anyone claiming those that follow the gay lifestyle were subhuman. God never makes a negative reference to skin color or decided that was an abomination.

Who has placed you or anyone else in the exalted position of reading the heart of another so you know this is an act of hate? From all accounts those that have refused this service or performing the photography  have performed this same service to the same group same group in a walk in manner.They have not been barred,ridiculed or humiliated.

To disagree with anything the gay community demands is hate and is echoed here and elsewhere.

I am asked frequently to provide a product for gays and other groups.There requests are not illegal,but for me personally I believe it to be sick deviant behavior and will not do so. That is not hate.Those requesting have as much of a legal right to exist in their deviancy as I do. I simply am n ot going to do it. Yet I do business with many gays for legitimate need. It is not hate no matter how self righteous that makes the accuser feel

 

Well,   the point is that it's a subjective view of yours against theirs.

 

Would you support a restaurant owner refusing service to Jews for whatever religious reasons?  Do you see a potential problem with allowing such commercial freedom?

[bonnie]

Well,   the point is that it's a subjective view of yours against theirs.

 

Would you support a restaurant owner refusing service to Jews for whatever religious reasons?  Do you see a potential problem with allowing such commercial freedom?

No it is your viewpoint against theirs as in calling those that refuse this service are hateful hypocrites. Didn't answer the question. Who paced you in the exalted poition of reading the hearts especially of those you don't know.

Another question you neglected to answer.

Should Muslim bakers be forced to provide for the celebration of something they believe to be evil? Should a Muslim photographer be forced to provide the record of something they abhor and believe to be wrong according to their religious beliefs? Do they deserve to have their businesses ruined because of their religious beliefs? Do you believe that Muslim bakers would find themselves in court and facing huge fines besides?

No I would not refuse Jews or anyone else as long as they were not asking me to violate my religious beliefs

[Gail]

Again, I bring up what I posted before:

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Why is this statement so different from any other refusal? From this I thought that it was a shop owner's prerogative to decide on restrictions on service. Maybe it isn't. I mean, it sounds discriminatory towards the poor person who lacks footwear.

[bonnie]

Again, I bring up what I posted before:

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Why is this statement so different from any other refusal? From this I thought that it was a shop owner's prerogative to decide on restrictions on service. Maybe it isn't. I mean, it sounds discriminatory towards the poor person who lacks footwear.

It is the same. 

[CoAspen]

 

And thirdly, the point of the OP is completely ignored in a orchestra of hypocrisy!   Yes, we love you, and Jesus did turn water into a wine for a wedding full of sinners, but....  I have a lot higher standards of morality than Jesus.   I will stand my ground, along with my right to cheer for violent sports, and whatever other hypocrisy I want to nose-dive into, but to support two people commuted to each other in relationship in the midst of unfortunate circumstances of their psychological condition.... that's icky.... sorry....  IMMORAL !

 

Sadly, what is the most noticed, by the public, are those who claim Christianity are quickly becoming single focused. Instead of crying "religious discrimination", seek out understanding. Do those who cry such also make sure their investments, their spending money, etc is not used in a way that conflicts with their 'religious belief'? We keep hearing about 'gay agenda', what is the 'christian agenda' in all of this single focus?

[bonnie]

Sadly, what is the most noticed, by the public, are those who claim Christianity are quickly becoming single focused. Instead of crying "religious discrimination", seek out understanding. Do those who cry such also make sure their investments, their spending money, etc is not used in a way that conflicts with their 'religious belief'? We keep hearing about 'gay agenda', what is the 'christian agenda' in all of this single focus?

The only reason it is focused on the gay agenda is that is the only agenda being using force to make others agree or participate in some way. I have no idea how others handle their investments as they are not demanding I agree or participate.

The homosexual lifestyle is the one sin that is going to be crammed,rammed and forced down the throat of those that hold another view.

[Gail]

If I wanted an Italian wedding and went to, let's say, someone who specialises in Jamaican weddings, is it a big thing if that person turns down the job and recommends someone else?

If there are many people refusing requests from gays it seems to me that there could be a whole share of the market that could be capitalised on by someone whose conscience is not bothered.

In our store we sell Bibles. I just ordered in a Dr. Ruckman study KJV for a customer, an item that I would not carry on our shelves. But I would conscientiously refuse to order in a Satanic Bible. That is just outside the realm of our store's mission statement. We reserve the right to draw a line.

It doesn't mean that I wouldn't befriend a pagan person, or show them kindness, etc on a personal level. Nor would I refuse one coming in to the store.

[CoAspen]

 

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

 

Business reasons! They want more business, not less business. Under some conditions, it is a health regulation.  They make the same rule for everyone, not for a certain type of client. Gay, straight, black, white pink, yellow, old, young. No comparison to the topic at hand.

 

I have yet to see why this would prohibit a 'poor person' from buying a service. No shirt, no shoes, but yet have money to buy food a restaurant? Discrimination for religious reasons is entirely different for a commercial business. Do we really want to go backwards in how we treat others? Religion has been long used to subjugate others into a different class of individuals. Why is Christianity attempting to go back down that path again? 

[Gail]

Co, please respond to my subsequent post. I think that our store DOES discriminate for religious reasons, but in our case it does it also for business reasons. But we could be a butcher refusing to sell sprouts or a Greek bakery refusing to sell dim sum.

I think that we could be at fault for refusing to order in the Satanic Bible. But there are just some requests we refuse to fill. We don't sell non-vegetarian cookbooks nor those that use alcohol, etc.

Having said that, we DO have great chats with Buddhists, Indians, meat-eaters, mainstream Christians, etc. We do at times have disgruntled people who don't agree with us. That is fine. We have had gay couples come in, one man I remember used to come in wearing women's heels. They are all welcome. But if they ask for something we don't as a rule carry, we just don't. We are up front about who we are. I don't remember ever having a hassle over it.

I don't know if this helps or hinders our case in this subject, but our mission statement is actually an enacted law on behalf of our Conference with our provincial government. We are a non-profit organisation under that act. Maybe that will change one day.

If the customer service person in the video had been me, I think I would have simply taken time with the customer to explain the bakery's policy. Our store might not be in the same position, as I said, we DO have gay customers and many others of varying moral/religious viewpoints. But our turn might very well come where our mission statement is challenged. As a general rule I like to think that we have good customer relations. As we do not advertise new customers come in on word of mouth.

[Gail]

One of our Conference staff summed it up nicely the last time we had an unhappy person coming in to return some Adventist books his wife had picked up at the swap meet.

The man was clearly agitated and was asking for someone theologically adept. I personally accompanied him upstairs and since the person we wanted to see was tied up I had him sit down. I gently placed my hand on the back of his shoulder and told him that someone would be seeing him in a moment.

After the man related his story to my colleague, Ern accepted the books and told him that as followers of Christ we believe in loving our neighbour. He treated the man kindly and the man calmed down. I think he left friends. We still don't agree theologically but he had accomplished what he came for. It turns out that in his church the man is the spiritual head in his family and he took his responsibility seriously in screening the books his wife came home with. That is another topic, but anyway.

The point is that we have non-Adventist customers telling their circles that our store has friendly sales staff. I think that does make a difference in business as well in life in general. Kindness is as much a part of sharing Jesus as what services a commercial outlet may provide.

[CoAspen]

 

Co, please respond to my subsequent post. I think that our store DOES discriminate for religious reasons,

 

Is this a church related business? Is it protected by separation of church and state?

[Gail]

Yes, it is a church-related business. Part of our mission statement is to print and distribute our material.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gail said in post # 43:

 

In our store we sell Bibles. I just ordered in a Dr. Ruckman study KJV for a customer, an item that I would not carry on our shelves. But I would conscientiously refuse to order in a Satanic Bible. That is just outside the realm of our store's mission statement. We reserve the right to draw a line.

 

Any book store has the right to choose the books that they will stock and/or sell.  A grocery store has the right to choose what foods that they will sell.  An attorney has the right to choose the area If specialization, E.G. criminal defense, labor law, marital law, family law, etc.   But, a real estate attorney does not have the right to refuse to handle a real estate transaction on the basis that the person purchasing the property are homosexual.  A physician who has chosed to specialize in O B does not have the right to refuse to handle the delivery of a prostitute.  NOTE:  In all cases I assume that there are no other preventing reasons.

 

In Gail's case, she would not have the right to refuse to sell a KJV Bible to a homosexual customer, at least in the U.S.  I do not know Canadian law well enough to comment on that aspect.

 

NOTE:  There may be, again in the U.S., an exception for Gail.  A Church that only sells its products to members, would potentially have the right to refuse to sell to a non-member.  I say that because there are some churches who realistically to not attempt to sell to the public.

 

 

[Gail]

Perhaps that is the key, and in our case may fall into the realm of separation of church and state. It may be that the other Christian bookstore in town might foreseeably run into problems in the future should they decide to take a stand of any kind.