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

[Gail]

"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."

And having said that I would LOVE to sell a KJV to a homosexual.

Regarding selling only to members, we did have a mandate from the federal government to sell the Worthington, etc food product only to church members. But here is how that works in Canada: while we do sell a good percentage of our food to an Adventist membership we feel it discriminatory to question customers as to their religious preference. So we don't.

That restriction is no longer in effect is what I have been told.

[fccool]

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.

 

I'm not asking you whether you should, or whether I am in position to judge.   I'm asking you whether you think it's ok for other to refuse food service to Jews, for example, based on their religious beliefs... because it's exact same issue at heart and you think it's ok to refuse service to homosexuals based on how someone feels about their practices and beliefs.

 

Again,  I'm not asking you as to what you would do.  I'm asking you where the line of that "religious freedom" is?   Is it ok to refuse Jews service based on some religious grounds that one religion may disagree with other?  

[Gail]

I think I would consider Cananda a more secular country than the U.S. While I am not familiar with laws regarding such here, it makes me curious how it works in Quebec where the Catholic Church still has a big hold on the religious world in that province.

[fccool]

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.

 

 

  First of all, because It's written as a preference on the door.    There are men-only clubs.  There are specialization shops that serve a very specific segment of population and simply don't serve other as a matter of specialization... and not "moral discrimination".

 

  If the baker would want to try putting "We don't do gay wedding cakes" on their door... I doubt a large majority of people today would buy from such store.   So, what happens is that such preference is hidden under "We serve all", and then people are surprised with "sorry, but we won't be serving you".

 

  Secondly, it's not shop's owner's prerogative to decide the larger scope of discriminatory restrictions on the service when he enters into a social contract with a state to provide certain benefits and protection of the secured commerce.  Your argument would be well-received if we lived in Wild West where anyone could pull out a gun and tell you to bug off for whatever reason, but we are not living in such society.

 

  There are certain restrictions on discriminatory practices to secure general civility and stop society from devolving into factions of various religious groups that only do business with each other and deny other service based on continual resentment of how other were wronged by discrimination. 

[B/W Photodude]

… 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 !

 

What is getting missed in the discussion is the level of participation by the shop owners. As illustrated in the video, the speaker welcomed gay people in "his restaurant." However, what these people are asking for in servicing a gay wedding is for the shop owner to perform a service to help make a gay event happen. That is wrong. Off the shelf items or regular items of a menu are very different as he discussed. 

 

Perhaps I can illustrate it this way. In health care, a worker can refuse to engage in certain activities that violate their conscience such as assisting in abortions, participating in organ retrieval for transplant, or any number of other activities. Fortunately, in a large medical center, there will usually be enough other workers who will do it. So, do you fire the person with a moral dilemma over participating. And what about those states with assisted suicide laws. Should physicians be persecuted for refusing to participate in euthanasia?

 

But a shop owner with ownership of a shop has a very direct personal responsibility for what their shop will be involved in or known to be involved in as it reflects on them personally. They are answerable!

 

So, I am sorry for those who have a psychological condition, but there are a lot of other people with psychological conditions beginning to bang on the door for acceptance. So, is their psychological condition more important than what is right? 

 

This discussion will be very interesting when we get to the Sunday laws, because I can now see some arguing that for the psychological "feel good"  of those promoting unity on Sunday that we should make them feel better! I shouldn't bet, but I am tempted to put a quarter on it right now.

[fccool]

What is getting missed in the discussion is the level of participation by the shop owners. As illustrated in the video, the speaker welcomed gay people in "his restaurant." However, what these people are asking for in servicing a gay wedding is for the shop owner to perform a service to help make a gay event happen. That is wrong. Off the shelf items or regular items of a menu are very different as he discussed. 

 

It's a faux argument of fallacy of continuum here.   It's like saying.

 

- Can a grain of sand make a dune?

- No it can't

- How about two?

- No

-How about three?

- No

- Therefore dunes are not made of grains of sand!

 

The fallacy here is that some level of involvement is "hands of non-involvement", while other is a "full-blown forced support".    A baker's job is to bake a cake... and not to enforce their view of religious morality on other people.   That's the whole point.   If we live in society where everyone gets to do that via their place of job... we won't have a functioning society.  It's not enough to say that something is wrong.   You have to actually show and demonstrate it objectively... and not a subjective religious belief or preference.

 

How about if a dinner is the couple's wedding anniversary dinner?

 

 

Perhaps I can illustrate it this way. In health care, a worker can refuse to engage in certain activities that violate their conscience such as assisting in abortions, participating in organ retrieval for transplant, or any number of other activities. Fortunately, in a large medical center, there will usually be enough other workers who will do it. So, do you fire the person with a moral dilemma over participating. But a shop owner with ownership of a shop has a very direct personal responsibility for what their shop will be involved in or known to be involved in as it reflects on them personally. They are answerable!

 

 

  There's a provision for such context in commerce, and it's called specialty shops.   They can serve exclusively Christian weddings without any issues at all.  But, in a sphere of contract with a state that protects all businesses indiscriminately, the state and consumers who likewise contract with state and businesses expect the same non-discrimination in return, unless the provision made for a specialty business that doesn't discriminate ... but specializes in serving a very specific segment of population.

 

  Again, same question to you... would you be ok with a business saying "We think being a Jew/black/asia is immoral, therefore we won't render a service".   Don't you see that being highly problematic?  What's the difference with people who subjectively view homosexuality to be immoral?

 

 

So, I am sorry for those who have a psychological condition, but there are a lot of other people with psychological conditions beginning to bang on the door for acceptance. So, is their psychological condition more important than what is right? 

 

 

What's right?  Who gets to decide that?  Some guys with political motivations who wrote a book and claimed that it's from God with no other objective means to verifying such fact?  How is it different from any religious preferences out there?

 

Likewise, psychological condition is not something one group has and others don't.   Everyone is in a set of psychological condition which forms their preferences. 

 

 

This discussion will be very interesting when we get to the Sunday laws, because I can now see some arguing that for the psychological "feel good"  of those promoting unity on Sunday that we should make them feel better! I shouldn't bet, but I am tempted to put a quarter on it right now.

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you squeeze "Sunday law" because the idea here is that your religious preferences don't give way to basic human decency.  The same goes for "Sunday laws" which we probably won't see anytime soon.

[fccool]

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.

 

 

Christians dominated political sphere in America since inceptions of this nation.   In fact, gays have been fired, castrated, jailed, ostracized, subjected to forceful "conversion therapies".... and now that they finally gather some political recognition they retaliate legally in light of the history of their past and present treatment in this country by the "righteous ones"... all of a sudden that's an example of a view being crammed down someone's throat?    Gimme a break

[CoAspen]

Interesting how people will wiggle out of other scenarios, but not gay issues. Very interesting!

 

 

I have no idea how others handle their investments as they are not demanding I agree or participate.

 

Neither is the person buying the cake for their wedding. They have only asked for a product that is produced and sold to anyone. Don't go down the road of baking is participating if you don't see the connection of buying a product whose profits are used for something you don't agree with. They manufactured the product for you, you may even ask for customized version, such as a car.

[bonnie]

Interesting how people will wiggle out of other scenarios, but not gay issues. Very interesting!

 

 

Neither is the person buying the cake for their wedding. They have only asked for a product that is produced and sold to anyone. Don't go down the road of baking is participating if you don't see the connection of buying a product whose profits are used for something you don't agree with. They manufactured the product for you, you may even ask for customized version, such as a car.

It isn't wiggling out of anything. I view it the same as those that ask me to participate by knowingly providing something I make for a sick deviant lifestyle.

When someone has ordered and it is within the scope of what I do I don't have them fill out a questionaire. When the information is supplied how they want the product to be so as to conform to their deviancy I say no.

I don't turn down someone that is gay that needs to physically have the product. I do turn down several groups that align themselves with the deviancy that they practice.

[Dr. Shane]

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

 

 

When I was younger, growing up in rural Minnesota, the motels would ask for IDs and if a man and a woman were sharing a room had different last names they were asked for an explanation which was noted in the motel's record. 

 

So the question is, does a motel owner have the right to do that?

[fccool]

It isn't wiggling out of anything. I view it the same as those that ask me to participate by knowingly providing something I make for a sick deviant lifestyle.

When someone has ordered and it is within the scope of what I do I don't have them fill out a questionaire. When the information is supplied how they want the product to be so as to conform to their deviancy I say no.

I don't turn down someone that is gay that needs to physically have the product. I do turn down several groups that align themselves with the deviancy that they practice.

 

Not sure how it applies.  All the baker did is request the names, and was notified that there will be two brides.  They were not asked to bake a different and "deviant" cake.   They were asked to bake a cake .   Sorry, but no point there.

 

http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/BOLI-sweetcakes.pdf

[CoAspen]

I have a question, for everyone....what if the God we believe in cut off services for our deviant lifestyle? No food, no rain, no sun, no open lines of communication?

What makes us better than God in making such decisions?

[Dr. Shane]

I have a question, for everyone....what if the God we believe in cut off services for our deviant lifestyle? No food, no rain, no sun, no open lines of communication?

What makes us better than God in making such decisions?

 

This is the issue here.  We, as Seventh-day Adventists may all agree that it is wrong for a baker not to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a motel owner not to let couples commit adultry in his or her motel, or for a Catholic urologist to refuse to do vestectormies.  We, as Seventh-day Adventists, may agree on all that because from our perspective we shouldn't force our beliefs on other people.  However there are Christians that belong to other denomination that believe differently than we do.  For them, in their beliefs (which our different from ours) to do these things is to participate in the sin itself.  So do we as a society respect their religious belief (which is different from ours) or do we as a society impose our belief (that they are not participating in the sin) upon them?

[bonnie]

I have a question, for everyone....what if the God we believe in cut off services for our deviant lifestyle? No food, no rain, no sun, no open lines of communication?

What makes us better than God in making such decisions?

Based on your reasoning in this quote and other statements you and others have made what logical reason remains to deny a gay or lesbian couple the right to a SDA church wedding ceremony?

 

God doesn't deny that  to us for our deviant lifestyle. God does not deny the right to a church ceremony if someone is over weight. Each and every couple that has been married in a SDA wedding ceremony by a SDA pastor has sinned and will continue to do so.

It has been said numerous times there are worse sins so by what logic is a  wedding ceremony by a SDA pastor denied to a gay or lesbian couple that are sinning as well.

[fccool]

Based on your reasoning in this quote and other statements you and others have made what logical reason remains to deny a gay or lesbian couple the right to a SDA church wedding ceremony?

 

 

The logical reason to deny SDA church wedding ceremony would be church operating in exclusive parameters that it sets up.   It can fire non-SDAs, it can hire only SDAs.  It's an institutional preference protected by religious expression laws.

 

What would be different, if church operated as a commercial for-profit institution open for everyone, and then discriminated based on some narrow parameters.   That would be a problem.

 

You are attempting to mix commercial activity, which is a contractual activity between state, people and vendor... with institutional preferences, which are not bound by the same commercial law.  

 

 

God doesn't deny that  to us for our deviant lifestyle. God does not deny the right to a church ceremony if someone is over weight. Each and every couple that has been married in a SDA wedding ceremony by a SDA pastor has sinned and will continue to do so.

It has been said numerous times there are worse sins so by what logic is a  wedding ceremony by a SDA pastor denied to a gay or lesbian couple that are sinning as well.

 

 

Not sure how it's relevant.  Again, you are equivocating two different issues... one of personal and institutional preferences, and the other of commercial contract law.

 

You and your pastor can refuse to do whatever you want to.   You can refuse gay people inside the church, if you want to (not saying you do).   You can demand that everyone who enters wears suits and ties, and you can demand that only virgins can marry, or any other potentially outrageous stipulation one can set up as a preference.

 

What you can't do is to start a business and use a religion as an excuse to discriminate against people, while every other (open to all public) vendor extends you the courtesy of serving you indiscriminately.  

[bonnie]

The logical reason to deny SDA church wedding ceremony would be church operating in exclusive parameters that it sets up.   It can fire non-SDAs, it can hire only SDAs.  It's an institutional preference protected by religious expression laws.

 

What would be different, if church operated as a commercial for-profit institution open for everyone, and then discriminated based on some narrow parameters.   That would be a problem.

 

You are attempting to mix commercial activity, which is a contractual activity between state, people and vendor... with institutional preferences, which are not bound by the same commercial law.  

 

 

Not sure how it's relevant.  Again, you are equivocating two different issues... one of personal and institutional preferences, and the other of commercial contract law.

 

 

No I am not. Coaspen posed this question......I have a question, for everyone....what if the God we believe in cut off services for our deviant lifestyle? No food, no rain, no sun, no open lines of communication?

What makes us better than God in making such decisions?

 

God doesn't deny sinners the right to marry. At least not found in my bible. It has been repeated frequently that there are worse sins and still God does not deny two straight  sinners the right to be married  by a SDA pastor in a church wedding. Some  other denominations as we  do prohibit gay or lesbian weddings because they believe it to be biblically wrong. All sin is.

What makes the SDA church better than God and we prohibit gay and lesbian weddings?

If the sin is no worse,if it only just and fair they be allowed to marry as the rest of us,if in dealing with them a persons religious conviction is nothing more than hateful hypocrisy there isn't any  basis to deny them the opportunity the rest of us have.

 

That is not a contractual question..

You have referred to those that don't accept your reasoning as doing so out of hate and hypocrisy. Those that put their money where their mouth is and are fully prepared if necessary to lose their business and their income don't do so out of petty hatred or hypocrisy. It is a belief they hold pretty near and dear to them. Your judgment as to their spiritual state is something that over and over has been condemned by many on this forum

[Gregory Matthews]

Fccool said in post # 65:

 

The logical reason to deny SDA church wedding ceremony would be church operating in exclusive parameters that it sets up.   It can fire non-SDAs, it can hire only SDAs.  It's an institutional preference protected by religious expression laws.

 

What would be different, if church operated as a commercial for-profit institution open for everyone, and then discriminated based on some narrow parameters.   That would be a problem.

 

You are attempting to mix commercial activity, which is a contractual activity between state, people and vendor... with institutional preferences, which are not bound by the same commercial law.  

 

Exactly.  That is the fundamental issue.

 

People with certain fundamental beliefs should not seek employment in occupations that require a violation of those beliefs.  IOW, if you have a beliefs that prevents you from selling alcoholic beverages, do not seek employment as a bar tender.

[fccool]

No I am not. Coaspen posed this question......I have a question, for everyone....what if the God we believe in cut off services for our deviant lifestyle? No food, no rain, no sun, no open lines of communication?

What makes us better than God in making such decisions?

 

God doesn't deny sinners the right to marry. At least not found in my bible. It has been repeated frequently that there are worse sins and still God does not deny two straight  sinners the right to be married  by a SDA pastor in a church wedding. Some  other denominations as we  do prohibit gay or lesbian weddings because they believe it to be biblically wrong. All sin is.

What makes the SDA church better than God and we prohibit gay and lesbian weddings?

If the sin is no worse,if it only just and fair they be allowed to marry as the rest of us,if in dealing with them a persons religious conviction is nothing more than hateful hypocrisy there isn't any  basis to deny them the opportunity the rest of us have.

 

I would actually agree with you and say, yes... but this preference is coming out of the traditional stance of the Church on the issue, and has little to do with the scope of the subject we are discussing.

 

The Church can have internal standards like any other institution.   But the Church exists in a scope of society at large that has to accomodate a large variety of people's and beliefs.  There's a systematic commerce law that was developed to do just that... in order to mediate these issues legally and consistently.

 

 

That is not a contractual question..

You have referred to those that don't accept your reasoning as doing so out of hate and hypocrisy. Those that put their money where their mouth is and are fully prepared if necessary to lose their business and their income don't do so out of petty hatred or hypocrisy. It is a belief they hold pretty near and dear to them. Your judgment as to their spiritual state is something that over and over has been condemned by many on this forum

 

 

it is a contractual question, because Church doesn't exist in vacuum.  In a case of theocratic SDA nation (Adventistan if you will)... there may be consistent laws that everyone is expected to go by.   But, in a case of US of A, there are laws that accommodate a whole range of possibilities and potential problems... and discrimination is a HUGE ONE given the history of this nation.

 

If you choose to live in this nation, it actually comes with commercial expectation of given other people the same courtesy they extend you.   A belief is secondary to this issue, because beliefs clash and there is an adequate way of resolving these issues which is an option to all vendors.  The baker can have an option to serve a specific segment of society without it considered to be discrimination.   What they can't do is discriminate, and then expect to travel on the roads, and enjoy legal services that everyone gets to enjoy indiscriminately.   That's simply not how social contract works.   If they don't like it, there are plenty of options to avoid it... one of which not advertising the business as "open to all".

[bonnie]

I would actually agree with you and say, yes... but this preference is coming out of the traditional stance of the Church on the issue, and has little to do with the scope of the subject we are discussing.

 

.As you,  and I suspect more and more SDA's view the prohibition of homosexual marriage or lifestyle  simply as a church preference and I don't we are bound to disagree. 

I was responding to Coaspen,not the subject of civil law or commerce

 

The Church can have internal standards like any other institution.   But the Church exists in a scope of society at large that has to accomodate a large variety of people's and beliefs.  There's a systematic commerce law that was developed to do just that... in order to mediate these issues legally and consistently.

 

 

Nor do I  believe  a specific chruch has to  accommodate a wide variety of beliefs. And  Yes that is happening more and more 

 

 

 

it is a contractual question, because Church doesn't exist in vacuum.  In a case of theocratic SDA nation (Adventistan if you will)... there may be consistent laws that everyone is expected to go by.   But, in a case of US of A, there are laws that accommodate a whole range of possibilities and potential problems... and discrimination is a HUGE ONE given the history of this nation.

 

If you choose to live in this nation, it actually comes with commercial expectation of given other people the same courtesy they extend you.   A belief is secondary to this issue, because beliefs clash and there is an adequate way of resolving these issues which is an option to all vendors.  The baker can have an option to serve a specific segment of society without it considered to be discrimination.   What they can't do is discriminate, and then expect to travel on the roads, and enjoy legal services that everyone gets to enjoy indiscriminately.   That's simply not how social contract works.   If they don't like it, there are plenty of options to avoid it... one of which not advertising the business as "open to all".

 

 

I am well aware of what the civil law is. I believe we are to obey that until and unless it conflicts with our religious belief.  Not you or anyone on this forum has the God given right to determine for me or anyone else what those religious beliefs are. My religious and moral beliefs end when I use civil law  to force you to go against yours.

Several posters on this forum have consistently mocked and . scoffed at those that don't agree with your "wisdom". They are labeled self righteous,hate filled hypocrites. I guess to some that is the definition of religious tolerance.There isn't any rule here that says you can't.

Yet most  that are labeled and judged as such show far more tolerance. They also show the strength of their convictions by knowing in all likelihood they will face tremendous court cost and the loss of their business. That is their religious right.

 

[bonnie]

If prohibiting a  homosexual lifestyle is only a church preference or if it is to be treated and understood as any other sin then we really need to forget biblical wisdom and welcome that lifestyle including church sanctioned marriage ceremonies.

[debbym]

what is the cake was for a hetero wedding couple that were swingers, and believed in open marriage.

[debbym]

in the hierarchy of sin, as i understand it, pride and self righteousness is at the top as the worst sin.

[bonnie]

what is the cake was for a hetero wedding couple that were swingers, and believed in open marriage.

I am sure that and many other things have taken place. I would think that  some would refuse if the bakery was asked to provide a cake  obviously celebrating a swinging lifestyle.

[bonnie]

in the hierarchy of sin, as i understand it, pride and self righteousness is at the top as the worst sin.

 I believe any sin that keeps a person from eternal life is the worst sin that person can commit.

Have any  been asked to rate sin on a sliding scale and see which ones we are willing to endorse or celebrate and which we don't participate in?

 

Should those guilty of  pride and self righteousness be denied membership and a church wedding by SDA pastor? If sin is rated and these are the worst,tell me again why we prohibit gay anf lesbian lifestyle and marriage?

[Tom Wetmore]

Providing a secular service, selling secular products, a person has a legsl obligation to the public to do provide those goods and services without imposing a value judgment on the customer based on the business owner's person beliefs, biases or values. If a business owner cannot abide by that simple commercial contract with the public, they should sell the store and take up some other way to make a living.