Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:08 pm

Alright, so I have two responses to make. The first will be an attempt to respond to both ArcticFox and Sstavix at the same time. A later one will be to Chozon1's response. Let's see how this goes...
I think we may be getting to the heart of the disagreement here.

Who is the one who determines whether or not the belief is "correct?" Is it the government that legislates morality in this nation? Is it the individual communities? Is it the individual?
This was already addressed partly, as believers we should already know where correct belief comes from more or less (if this is not the case then that is a separate issue that's outside the scope of this thread).

Outside of that context, it is up to society as a whole to realize that truth. Barring an inability to come to this (cause lets face it that is not always possible), we will have to settle for coming up with a standard that remains as true as possible to the ideals of this country and that allows for the rights of all parties involved to be preserved insofar as it is possible.

It isn't just the government, it isn't just one group or another, it isn't just the individual. It is society's job as a whole. In this regard, I think our society as a whole has failed, partly cause most people don't care or want to put in the real effort required. It is a social and cultural problem that plagues pretty much every major issue these days.

So at this point since our society seems to be content with not doing what it needs to do, well, now what? Do we have to settle for one of these other options that in my opinion are all bad in their own way? Seems the consensus here is leave it up to the individual, and while I am not entirely sure where my final position will be I currently lean somewhat towards the government. Seems in the case of the former the government is said not to have that authority and not to be trusted even if it did, and my thinking is I'd at least rather have some form of established authority do something instead of leaving this up to what I think is a moral free for all. In both cases the issue is that the source of morality comes from subjective sources, the only difference being which subjective source "wins". To me they are both two sides of the same coin.

I don't see how we can be comfortable with this knowing that genuine truth exists outside of ourselves and remains timeless regardless of any human made thing that comes up. To me, the more I think about it the more I think that each of the current prevailing mentalities here essentially concede the point that there exists no higher, external truth, much less an objective one. Even leaving it up to the individual concedes this point. We talk about a secular government having only subjective moral foundations, but in a pluaralistic society such as ours, leaving it all up to the individual will easily be just as subjective. Heck, even amongst believers, leaving everything up to the individual is also conceding this point and is not the best way to approach the faith.

It is our responsibility as a society to shoot for something more. Even if it is not the absolute best, it can definitely be better than what we have now. The problem is that our society as a whole really doesn't care.

On a related note, where do you believe our rights come from?
Some rights are given by God, some by our Constitution (though they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). There are rights that are not unique to American Citizens only and transcend all nations and cultures, most of which (note, not all) I believe come from the Almighty. The concept of rights are put in place for us to use in this fallen world. If human nature wasn't fallen, we wouldn't need this concept of rights cause we would never have to worry about human rights violations.

Now, this doesn't mean to imply that we have rights in the sense that we have any rights before God of course. That's a different matter entirely.

Now having said all this, there some that are uniquely American ones too. This doesn't lessen their value though necessarily but it does provide perspective for which ones take priority should there be conundrums like this.

As far as how that applies here? Well, that's a good question cause in general I believe both the freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination are in the first category. The line between discriminating against a religion and discriminating against sexual orientation isn't as clear cut as say, whether or not a Muslim should be forced to make a cake with Mohammed on it.

Speaking of which, let me move on to related statements made afterwards:

I posted that pic because it's a great example of another moral dilemma that has nothing to do with either Christianity or homosexuality. This whole debate (and I mean in general, not just this thread) keeps being all about a culture war between homosexuals and Christianity. Maybe that's because, on some level, that's what it's really about. Islamic owned bakeries, photography studios and wedding venues aren't being attacked the way Christian ones are, and nobody's being attacked over any issue other than gay weddings.
It really is the form this culture war has taken but it shouldn't be. Personally I think both sides have blown this way out of proportion and meanwhile both sides are getting persecuted and executed elsewhere in the world and no one bats an eye cause we are all too busy complaining about wedding cakes.

On a different note, the thing for me is that the moral dilemma for Islam presented here isn't the same type. It goes under the category of an explicit anti-Muslim message, which as I have said before is unacceptable even regarding the gay marriage issue. That is clear cut while some of the example scenarios mentioned on this thread and in general are not like that.

I think a better approach with regards to this is opening up with what other religions have said on the issue of gay marriage specifically. The Dalai Lama is of course the most interesting. On one hand he says it is ok as long as it does not violate any religious tenets of ones faith (he called it religious vows). Of course, he still maintains (and always has) that one such tenet is in Tibetan Buddhism under their own take on proper sexual conduct. Not every branch of Buddhism agrees, but that's how it is in Tibetan Buddhism and all the nuances need to be understood for it to be taken in the right context. It forces both sides to either come out of their shells or dodge the issue entirely. This to me is a good indicator of who is really looking to hear someone else out or not. Both sides of course try to pidgeonhole the Dalai Lama into saying what they want him to say so it is a good chance to show that yes, other religions have their stances but you must understand why they do.

So here are the links for those (one for his original views and one of how his current statements are to be taken in light of them and whether they are consistent):

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd2.htm

http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingab ... rriage.htm

This would be a better, more close to home challenge and potentially open up a real discussion on faith and gay marriage. That is ultimately the real goal here if this issue is to ever be resolved. Open, honest, genuine dialogue is what is required and I can't see many other ways to get that process started. Many of them easily devolve into whichever side is the majority giving themselves pats on the back rather than engaging the other side to work something out, understand where the other is coming from, and share the real truth.

Finally, I will close this rather lengthy response with something regarding this:

My only aggravation is when legalizing gay marriage was the big debate a few years ago the claim was "This wouldn't affect anyone but homosexuals who want to get married, so you have no right to deny us!"...We knew better than that then, but we were shouted down for being paranoid. And now that lie has been revealed and there is no acknowledgement of that fact, nor will there ever be, from the pro-gay marriage folks.

And that makes me bitter.
I understand what you're trying to say here, although, I disagree as to how extensive this really has become. Outside of specific issues like the wedding cakes, it still doesn't really affect us I don't think. To put this in perspective, I remember Christians talking about how the very definition of marriage itself was now under direct attack, how this or that cardinal was saying that this will unravel modern civilization, and how it will destroy the sacrament of marriage itself. I think a lot of those claims are still overblown as no one is forcing Churches to adopt this secular definition of marriage and how countries define civil marriage has no effect on what the Church teaches on the matter and we should not feel threatened at this time. None of the claims a lot of prominent Christians from various denominations have made lately have come to pass.

Yes, it is bad that now we have a situation like this one in the first place, but still, given the fact that it still isn't a clear cut case, I'm still gonna hold off on making a judgment call. My line in the sand is if attempts to force churches to conduct gay weddings starts becoming widespread or wedding cakes that have explicit messages (like the Bert and Ernie one I mentioned before, not just having two man or woman figurines on top of the cake) are being forced to be made via government rulings. I don't even recall seeing any incidents but even if there are, again, until it becomes representative of the LGBT community as a whole and not just the work of a few extremist nuts, I can't conclude that we are actually under attack at this time.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:08 pm

Alright, now to address Chozon1's comments:
I still think that's painting too broad a brush, but supposing that the vast majority of homosexuals were like this...

Even with that as an additional hurdle, there are ways to bring it up and ways not to bring it up. Most people are aware of what Christianity teaches but it is important to note several things:

1) It is only homosexual activity, not their sexual orientation in of itself.
2) To make clear that it is an automatic condemnation any more than heterosexual ones (more on this later in the post).
3) There is no double standard that makes homosexuality any better or worse than anything else. I understand this may come off as being "soft", but I think this perspective is due to an unnecessary level of harshness and attention.
4) We are no better than them
5) We are not trying to "change" their sexuality either by trying to "make them straight" or something. There are all kinds of horror stories talking about those and it kind of relates to #1. It is not their orientation or identity we are trying to change (of which they may not have any control over).

There is also the fact that Christians have all too often done the same thing in regards to this and other similar controversies as well, which doesn't help our case much.
For number one, there's a fine line there that's often treated as the Grand Canyon. And I tend to not see it being practiced in churches who have accepted it. For example, homosexual pastors and becoming a norm, and no restraint is placed on their relationship; but can you imagine a church where even the youth pastor was having sex outside of marriage? Instant job replacement.
I do not agree that there is a fine line, I think it is pretty clear cut. Actions are pretty straightforward and we know what actions constitute homosexual activity. A state of being or genetic makeup on the other hand is not the same thing. I guess I don't see where the difficulty lies.

As for practice, well, in those cases with incorrect practice, that doesn't mean that there isn't a way to do it right. A pastor or prominent religious figure can be a homosexual and in my mind that is not a disqualification. Now if he is having relations with another guy then yes that is a problem in the same way that a pastor having relations with a woman outside of marriage would be. The same punishment of pastoral discipline or defrocking would be in order in both cases, depending on how the individual church handles such things. So we don't disagree in that regard. Again, acknowledging that both are sins and are worthy of clerical discipline does not require anything special for either of them, or at least it shouldn't.

For three, I'm going to have to say no again; all sin will separate us from God, and is equal in that way. But it does not logically follow that all sin is equal, or less harmful. Moreso when you consider that homosexuality is quickly becoming an accepted "life style". I don't mind parroting myself here, since that's kind of important. There is no acknowledgement of sin, and thus no repentance.
Well, heterosexual relations outside of marriage have already become an accepted "life style". We aren't just talking about a couple who does things before they get married either. We're talking pretty much everything under the sun (not gonna go into details in order to keep this family friendly), even things outside of any commitment or remotely similar intent whatsoever among many other things. Our society as a whole has already accepted it, but a lot of places that would say that both are wrong aren't nearly as harsh towards these. Some churches have a lot more compassion for one or the other, and that is a problem in its own right.

That said, yes, with no acknowledgement of sin, there is no repentance. Part of that of course is meeting people where they are. They have to be allowed to come to God in their own time. I think this issue requires much more delicacy than we think.

Of course, acknowledgement alone won't imply repentance. Those of us who are believers I am sure have our share of sins. A rhetorical question I have is if any of them were sexual sins, have they fully been repented of? Were there times where you did not have a desire to even do so and did not try to ask God for said desire? Have you ever backslid into them later even when you did? Are there any specific issues or predispositions that you have no control over which tend to be obstacles to this?

They aren't things for us to answer here, these are things we all reflect on for ourselves and things to keep in mind regarding this. These questions as I keep saying before, apply to any Christian regarding sexual sins, regardless of the nature of them and certainly regardless of sexual orientation.

Fours true completely, as is five. Christians homosexuals aren't called to be straight, but to be holy. But there's the minor problem that a large amount of people won't accept that, homosexual or otherwise. They see it as an unnecessary and backward tradition.
True. That's where reaching out in love and meeting people where they are is needed.

One of the problems here that we're fighting over is that you're perceiving a double standard, whereas I'm perceiving a lack of acknowledgement that it's a sin. You want me to to treat all sin as equal, assuming I don't. I don't want homosexual peoples persecuted or preached at more than the norm, but I would like an acknowledgement that their lifestyle is wrong. Which is incredibly hard to get nowadays.
Well, you've seen why I think there is a double standard as that's been the basis of most of the things I've said. So what makes you think that I or anyone who holds to a similar position to me is not acknowledging what the Faith teaches on the matter?

See, there's a point where that becomes enabling, and not love. Compassion and gentleness are not always love. To put it in another perspective, suppose you know someone who's an alcoholic. Which is love? To continue picking them up from bars and driving them home until they get tired of the lifestyle, or dead? Or to check them into AA? Or even to set them down with family and have a chat over how they're wrecking their life?

You know, I had a friend back in college who was a heavy smoker. We were on a smoke free campus with a $50 fine if you were caught. So he asked me to guard his books one day while he went and found a place to smoke. Without thinking too much, I agreed. Was nearly late to class for it too. So was I showing him love? Or enabling harmful behavior without so much as a word to the contrary?
Well, I'd disagree with some of this. Compassion is an integral component of love, gentleness is not. Of course, love must be accompanied by truth and vice versa but Compassion is always needed.

As for the first part, I would say all three in their own way. The checking them into AA or a detox clinic should only be done if they wish though. Other than that, all of them are an act of love. The first one is making sure the person DOESN'T get behind their own wheel and kills themselves. Naturally this will get old pretty fast so telling them that this is not ok to keep expecting this to continue and/or staging an intervention is an appropriate next step. What happens next depends on the results.

Having said all this, I think part of our disagreement is what we would consider appropriate steps in the first place. What would you say is appropriate regarding homosexuals then? Would staging an intervention be an appropriate step? Would it amount to anything meaningful or will it do more harm than good?
I am not sure of my answer second question just yet but I will gladly explain my reasoning regarding the first...

As for Paul, there are verses such as the one quoted here and others relating to it to take into context. I do not think the words used to describe homosexuality in this passage or other related ones are limited to just that one item. In another one he lists a whole bunch of people who will not inherit the Kingdom, which includes heterosexual sins (fornication) as well. They are all lumped in together.

Although, as he also writes all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God is merciful to all of us, and we do not deserve it regardless of what the issue is. As he also writes in Corinthians God will judge those outside the Church. Our responsibility is towards those in the Church. Therefore, once more, proclaiming a final judgment would not be the correct thing to do. In like manner, to say that the harshest words only apply to one particular sin that Paul names to me is a misinterpretation. It seems here and elsewhere he treats them all equally.

There is much more I could say on this topic but I think this is enough for now. Hope that helps.
True. But with a caveat. In that passage with Paul (or maybe the later one in Corinthians), directly afterwords, he says "And some of you were such things". The emphasis is mine, but I think it's important because it shows repentance. Not going straight, but repentance. Which, to repeat myself, is not something you're going to get in a world which does not acknowledge sin. Why repent if you're not doing something wrong?
This goes back to the stuff I mentioned earlier about repentance. One thing that has bugged me in the past with some people is that they have acted like some type of expert on how you can tell if someone has "sufficiently" repented. Not saying you are doing this, just that it is something I find objectionable.

Our responsibility is towards those in the church regarding judgement. But that doesn't mean we're not responsible for policy and life outside of the church, where we're supposed to be salt, light, and pull people from hellfire. No one is proclaiming final judgment here; or even in the court cases concerned with this thread. It's the other way around, actually. The law is in place so that we're not judged and penalized. Or anyone who disagrees with someone else, for that matter.
True, but is legislation the only way we can do it, or the best? We have talked at length about whether the government has the right to step in and rule that businesses should be compelled to make cakes for gay weddings. This goes back to the problem of both sides trying to manipulate the wording of said law to favor their side over everyone else. Where law is concerned there will be some kind of judgment in court one way or another. The way the issue currently stands any ruling will favor one side over the other inevitably, the question being to what extent.

It would be better to have both sides come to some working agreement or consensus to resolve this current controversy, legislate in order to protect that, and then we continue to be that salt through outreach and evangelism rather than legislation.

And you are entirely, 100% entitled to believe that. It's a God-given right. You are allowed and encouraged even, to hold to that belief. And because of human rights, given by God and acknowledged at times by Uncle Sam, you can sit here and tell me about your views.

But you are not entitled to force me to agree. Least of all at the threat of legal action. Hence, the Indiana law. Nor vice-versa; I cannot force you to admit that I shouldn't have to do something I think is wrong.
No one is saying I am allowed to force you to agree. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want.

However, the Indiana law, and pretty much any law made concerning this issue, has a scope that extends beyond whether people agree with each other or not. The real implications of any of these laws are what ways are the parties involved allowed to act on said beliefs? What happens when we have competing demands or even competing rights? A discriminatory belief on either side can still be held and practiced in their own lives, but when it reaches the issue of commerce or any other public institution, that's where we get problems. This is because said discriminatory belief will infringe on some very clear cut rights of others and this becomes the overriding factor when the two clash. This goes for people on both sides of the issue.

So, I can't stop an LGBT meeting or a church prayer breakfast from getting together and preaching unreasoning hate towards the other side. They can do that, proclaim it to be truth, preach it publicly, and try to get others to agree publicly within reason. Said groups do not have a right to go and discriminate against the other side in the area of public commerce among other places. The right not to be denied service in the public square over this takes precedence in this situation, provided no one is making an explicit statement that would constitute an actual attack on the owner's beliefs.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:54 am

On a different note, the thing for me is that the moral dilemma for Islam presented here isn't the same type. It goes under the category of an explicit anti-Muslim message, which as I have said before is unacceptable even regarding the gay marriage issue. That is clear cut while some of the example scenarios mentioned on this thread and in general are not like that.
You don't think a Christian who is being forced to do a man/man cake topper is being forced to portray an explicitly anti-Christian message? To some Christians, that's exactly what it is. The couple to be married may not look at it that way, but then a person wanting a Mohammed cartoon may not mean it in that way either. Intent isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not someone ought to be forced to do something that they feel is a direct and explicit attack on their own beliefs.

I think it's inappropriate and wrong to react to that by dismissively saying "Aw suck it up they aren't out to get you." (Not accusing you personally of saying that, but it's the vibe we hear from the other side on this.)
I understand what you're trying to say here, although, I disagree as to how extensive this really has become.
Not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with... I didn't comment on how extensive it was, only that it has happened.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22960
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:00 pm
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Chozon1 » Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:21 am

No one is saying I am allowed to force you to agree. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want.

However, the Indiana law, and pretty much any law made concerning this issue, has a scope that extends beyond whether people agree with each other or not. The real implications of any of these laws are what ways are the parties involved allowed to act on said beliefs? What happens when we have competing demands or even competing rights? A discriminatory belief on either side can still be held and practiced in their own lives, but when it reaches the issue of commerce or any other public institution, that's where we get problems. This is because said discriminatory belief will infringe on some very clear cut rights of others and this becomes the overriding factor when the two clash. This goes for people on both sides of the issue.

So, I can't stop an LGBT meeting or a church prayer breakfast from getting together and preaching unreasoning hate towards the other side. They can do that, proclaim it to be truth, preach it publicly, and try to get others to agree publicly within reason. Said groups do not have a right to go and discriminate against the other side in the area of public commerce among other places. The right not to be denied service in the public square over this takes precedence in this situation, provided no one is making an explicit statement that would constitute an actual attack on the owner's beliefs.
Here's the thing though; you make it seem clear cut, agreeable for both sides, and without problems: I can believe whatever I want, as long as I don't discriminate against others in a commercial or public area.

But in reality, that means I can believe what I want, but I'm not allowed to act on it in all areas of life. Just those someone else deems acceptable or applicable.

That's problem one.

Here's problem two: The reason I should have to “bake a cake” as it were, is because, according to both you in this thread and the typical logic one hears regarding this scenario, it has been declared that it's not requiring me to do something wrong.

Succinctly, someone say's "I won't do this. According to my beliefs, it's wrong". The response they get is "No, it's not, according to my beliefs. Get over it or face severe legal consequences."

The problem with this reasoning has been brought up multiple times in this thread. To dramatize it: Who watches the Watchers? Who get's to decide for me what I believe is wrong?

Wouldn't you say that forcing me to do something I believe is wrong, on the basis that someone else doesn't believe it's wrong, would be considered intolerance at the least? I would. And it is force; in this case the only alternatives are to bend what you believe, and potentially disobey God, or pay large amounts of money into legal fees or penalties.

Keep in mind, for me, this isn't just theory. I'm a crafter by business; I may very well have to deal with a situation like those facing the bakers at some point in my life, and I'd like to know I can follow my conscience, do what I think God wants me to, as opposed to someone else' conscience and their beliefs. At least without being sued to oblivion in the name of tolerance and anti-discrimination.
Image

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:06 am

Wouldn't you say that forcing me to do something I believe is wrong, on the basis that someone else doesn't believe it's wrong, would be considered intolerance at the least? I would. And it is force; in this case the only alternatives are to bend what you believe, and potentially disobey God, or pay large amounts of money into legal fees or penalties.
Just to add to this: Or go to jail, which is the ultimate end result for not paying those fines or continuing to disobey. That isn't being extreme, as threats of jail have already happened.
Keep in mind, for me, this isn't just theory. I'm a crafter by business; I may very well have to deal with a situation like those facing the bakers at some point in my life, and I'd like to know I can follow my conscience, do what I think God wants me to, as opposed to someone else' conscience and their beliefs. At least without being sued to oblivion in the name of tolerance and anti-discrimination.
I can relate to this as well. As a professional web developer with aspirations of starting my own company, I may well one day be put into a similar position. "Build us a website promoting LGBT issues or we will sue your business to death." As a man of conviction and morality, am I really supposed to accept money for building something promoting sin and immorality? Am I to put my name on a product that endorses activity that is in direct violation of the Commandments of my Creator?

And here's another thing: Suppose you have a business like Chozon's or mine or some wedding photographer, and that business is well known to be Christian owned... Don't you think people might start trilling such businesses looking for a payout?

"Well gee Chad, how can we afford the caterer at our wedding?"
"I have an idea, Todd... Why don't we go ask that Mormon web developer guy to build us a page about our wedding? When he refuses, we sue him, and the money from the lawsuit can cover any caterer you want!"
"Oh you're so smart. This is why we're together."
"I know it."
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:55 pm

A lot of good points here for me to consider, but before I address those I think I found one of the major points of contention:

Intent isn't the issue.
Actually I think it is and perhaps that's part of where a lot of our disagreements are stemming from. I think with issues that aren't quite so black and white like this one intent is a key factor.

A gay couple looking to go to a bakery for a cake that did not know the owners were Christians is a very different situation than a gay couple going into a bakery that they know is owned by Christians just to start trouble (and/or get lawsuit money). Due to the fundamental differences in these situations, each one must be handled as a separate case. In the case of the latter I think the Christian bakery would have a good case to make, in the case of the former not so much. If a gay couple has no clue regarding the religious affiliation of the owners then as far as they know their request is perfectly reasonable. The business wasn't being broadcasted as a Christian one and there was no way anyone could have reasonably expected an average joe to know that. The natural question that follows is why all of a sudden does the religion factor in now in this specific case? I'm willing to bet that this is the lens by which the situation is being viewed. They had a reasonable expectation that this was just some average bakery for a regular cake just like any other couple would have. The couple can't be held responsible for what they do not know in this case.

The second situation is different because the intent is to go on the offensive against a bakery that they know is a Christian bakery. It is a calculated, coordinated, and premeditated attack. The two people in this couple are not innocent average joes now but rather they are trying to make themselves into false martyrs. That should be resisted, even if it means having to do jail time, though I do not think it would be right to sentence the bakers to jail in these kinds of situations.

So that's what I have for now and I hope this will help you guys understand where my premises are coming from.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:18 pm

A gay couple looking to go to a bakery for a cake that did not know the owners were Christians is a very different situation than a gay couple going into a bakery that they know is owned by Christians just to start trouble (and/or get lawsuit money). Due to the fundamental differences in these situations, each one must be handled as a separate case.
Reasonable though the request may be, it doesn't somehow obligate the baker to make the cake just because the prospective customers would be sad if he says no.

There's no practical way to gauge the true intent of the prospective customers to be able to handle the two different scenarios differently.

I know you're trying to find an equitable solution for both sides, and that's good of you, but in this case there's just a baseline that fundamentally causes a conflict. The only equitable solution is to send them to a shop that's willing to do it. Otherwise what we're saying is that the inconvenience of having to drive to two bakeries instead of just one is such a grievous injury that the Government has to step in.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:56 am


Reasonable though the request may be, it doesn't somehow obligate the baker to make the cake just because the prospective customers would be sad if he says no.
Well, that is one way of looking at it, but one of the things to keep in mind is it isn't whether or not the prospective customers would merely be sad. That's how we may perceive it, but that is not how it is being perceived by them. More on this later on in this response.

There's no practical way to gauge the true intent of the prospective customers to be able to handle the two different scenarios differently.
Sure there is, there are a few objective measures that can be used to help with that:

1) Is it a bakery that is advertises itself as a Christian bakery?
2) Is it well known (or can be expected to be known) to the majority of the public that the owners are Christians?
3) What kind of cake does the couple want?

The first two establish whether it is reasonable for any potential customer to expect that the bakeries are Christian owned or not. The third establishes once more, what the bakery is actually saying no towards. If 1 and 2 are no, and 3 is just a simple cake, then I would say the couple in question would understandably be thinking "What is this? We didn't ask for trouble or for a religious debate, we just wanted a cake!" I think the grievance would be justified in that situation because they had no way of knowing. If they did have a way of knowing and decided to do it anyway, then it is a different situation cause they knew what they were getting themselves into.

I know you're trying to find an equitable solution for both sides, and that's good of you, but in this case there's just a baseline that fundamentally causes a conflict. The only equitable solution is to send them to a shop that's willing to do it.
While there is an inevitable conflict, that is not the only equitable solution. I stand by my original proposal as I do think it is a far more equitable one, albeit one where both sides need to do a bit of give and take. Even if we don't go with mine, any lasting solution will require that give and take, and both sides have to be willing to do it. If either side is not that is on them I think.


Otherwise what we're saying is that the inconvenience of having to drive to two bakeries instead of just one is such a grievous injury that the Government has to step in.
Now we come back to the matter of perspective. If it was just an isolated incident or two, then yes, I would agree that this perspective is the accurate one. However, laws like the one in Indiana shoots a big hole through that. Why? Cause now it is lawful for any business to do so statewide. Sure, there won't be uniformity in regards to how many businesses in each state will invoke these kinds of laws, but I think we both would have to admit that in some states it will be invoked a lot more than others.

So now we have a problem, it isn't just that this one bakery is not "playing nice" so to speak and all it amounts to is a minor inconvenience. It isn't just going to just two bakeries instead of one. Depending on how widespread the invocation of these laws are, two bakeries can easily become three, four, five, ten, etc. The only reason this would be possible is because the Government stepped in and opened the floodgates by making laws like this one. It is the fact that this is now sanctioned by the law is what changes the perspective from a customer merely being sad about not getting a cake at one specific place to being singled out for denial of service at other businesses. It doesn't help that said laws allow people to hide behind vague religious sounding lingo, even if that was not the original intent (although the law in Indiana is really vague in its own right). Not only that but again, all businesses can do this now, not just bakeries. So now what began as a just wanting a bakery to give them a cake has turned into wondering if they can go to any business to get service for anything.

So when understood from that angle, when someone in that situation is hearing "religious freedom", what is really being said is state sanctioned favoritism to a specific religion. Sure, it technically can apply to other religions too, but most people on both sides know that this was done in direct response to situations like gay marriage wedding cakes. Other places who are looking to implement similar laws are also doing it in response to the same situation and most people see right through any attempts to say that this is for all religions.


I will say this though, no matter which angle you decide to take there is one thing that needs to be made very clear...

This isn't an issue over whether the Government should legislate or intervene in some fashion. Governments already are and taking one side or another. Even on this issue of the law in Indiana, we can't say it is an issue of keeping the government out because the very fact that Indiana made these laws means that the Government has already stepped in. The primary difference here is that this intervention simply favors a different side.

The real discussion should be what stance should Government be taking regarding these laws, cause the reality is that governments across the nation are beginning to take one either through court cases being brought to them or of their own initiative.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:51 pm

Sure there is, there are a few objective measures that can be used to help with that:

1) Is it a bakery that is advertises itself as a Christian bakery?
2) Is it well known (or can be expected to be known) to the majority of the public that the owners are Christians?
3) What kind of cake does the couple want?
I think this is an oversimplification. It would work fine if everything were so black & white, but it isn't./

1) Just because a bakery is Christian owned doesn't automatically mean it wouldn't make cakes for gay weddings. There are plenty of Christian denominations that have embraced this sort of thing.

2) This is just a part of #1, and carries the same weight.

3) This isn't relevant. No Christian bakery has refused to bake a regular (or birthday) cake for anyone. If you're just looking for a cake to celebrate at an office party, the nature of the ownership is immaterial. In any case, if you were gay and knew a particular bakery was hostile to the idea of gay marriage, you probably wouldn't want to buy even so much as a doughnut there in anyway.
While there is an inevitable conflict, that is not the only equitable solution. I stand by my original proposal as I do think it is a far more equitable one, albeit one where both sides need to do a bit of give and take. Even if we don't go with mine, any lasting solution will require that give and take, and both sides have to be willing to do it. If either side is not that is on them I think.
What do you want the Christian side to give? All they want is to be left alone when it comes to these matters. They should have to pay for it now? Remember, it isn't the Christian business owner side that has suddenly changed in the last few years. They didn't ask for this crap.
I think we both would have to admit that in some states it will be invoked a lot more than others.
Of course it will. Why does that matter? Someone in a heavily Christian state may have to drive an additional 5 miles instead of 2? I'm sorry if I don't see the injury here. People in other parts of the world are being publicly executed for being gay. I'm shedding no tears for such a minor inconvenience, especially when they only "equitable" solution would be for me to violate my conscience and my God's will if I were a business owner, all to save somebody a couple bucks of gas and 10 minutes.
So when understood from that angle, when someone in that situation is hearing "religious freedom", what is really being said is state sanctioned favoritism to a specific religion.
So wait... you're saying that the state violates the First Amendment unless it violates the First Amendment.

So this isn't a problem if only 1 out of 10 bakeries won't do gay wedding cakes, but if it gets up to 7 or 8 out of 10 the Government needs to be able to step in and force them all to do gay wedding cakes?

Tell you a secret: People can vote with their wallet. If 9/10 bakeries in a given area refuse to do gay wedding cakes, it's probably because the overwhelming majority of the people who live in and around that area feel the same way and are choosing to keep doing business with them. Small businesses are a reflection of the culture of the community in which they exist for this reason.
This isn't an issue over whether the Government should legislate or intervene in some fashion.
Well it really is though. In the case of the Indiana law and similar ones already on the books at the Federal level as well as several other states, the Government isn't taking the side of the Christian business owners. It's simply shielding people from having Government force used to make them violate their beliefs. This is what Government is supposed to do... uphold rights.

Bottom line: Even if we take the First Amendment out of it, look at it from a judicial perspective: which is the greater burden, the couple having to expend a little extra effort to find a baker that will do the cake, or the baker being forced to act against his beliefs by participating in the event?
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:04 pm


Well it really is though. In the case of the Indiana law and similar ones already on the books at the Federal level as well as several other states, the Government isn't taking the side of the Christian business owners. It's simply shielding people from having Government force used to make them violate their beliefs. This is what Government is supposed to do... uphold rights.

Bottom line: Even if we take the First Amendment out of it, look at it from a judicial perspective: which is the greater burden, the couple having to expend a little extra effort to find a baker that will do the cake, or the baker being forced to act against his beliefs by participating in the event?
If you read certain versions such as the Indiana one, it actually does when you see what the provisions actually allow. There was a similar controversy in Arizona when a law that was very much like this one was passed and there is a similar problem with one being proposed in Arkansas.

As I stated previously, any business of any kind can deny service as long as they can come up with a reason why it would be a "substantial burden" on their beliefs. Without a clear definition of what that entails, people can and will come up with any explanation they see fit, that's human nature.


So to answer the question of what is the greater burden, consider this in light of what I just said...

So a gay couple goes in to some random bakery that has good reviews and gets turned away cause the Christian owner says the cake is a substantial burden on their beliefs. Then there are other bakeries who do the same elsewhere.

Now ok, let's say they figured the cake part out. Let's say they wished to go out on a date, they go in holding hands, and the restaurant says they can't be served because serving a gay couple would constitute support for their lifestyle and a substantial burden on the beliefs of the Christian restaurant owners. I imagine it would get kind of old if this happens more than once. Remember, laws like the one Indiana has passed specifically have allowed any business to be able to do this.

Now let's say even after all this they get married and now they want to go get a house. Simple enough, but now they are running into realtors who won't do it because according to them, providing a home would be supporting a gay marriage lifestyle and thus a substantial burden on their beliefs. So now this is yet another thing they can't do simply because of who they are. They aren't allowed to own property or at the very least a lot of unnecessary obstacles are being thrown up in order to do so.


I am guessing that some would argue that these businesses have a right to not violate their own consciences in all these cases correct? That each of these individual situations taken by themselves would not be nearly as much of a burden as forcing a Christian to do things against their beliefs right? Ok, so now consider this situation...

So a Christian couple goes in to some random bakery that has good reviews and gets turned away cause the Radical Muslim owner says the cake is a substantial burden on their beliefs. Then there are other bakeries who do the same elsewhere.

Now ok, let's say they figured the cake part out. Let's say they wished to go out on a date, they go in holding hands and are wearing things that clearly indicate their religion, and the restaurant says they can't be served because serving a gay couple would constitute support for their lifestyle and a substantial burden on the beliefs of the radical Muslim restaurant owners. I imagine it would get kind of old if this happens more than once. Remember, laws like the one Indiana has passed specifically have allowed any business to be able to do this.

Now let's say even after all this they get married and now they want to go get a house. Simple enough, but now they are running into realtors who won't do it because according to them, providing a home would be supporting a Christian lifestyle and thus a substantial burden on their beliefs. So now this is yet another thing they can't do simply because of who they are. They aren't allowed to own property or at the very least a lot of unnecessary obstacles are being thrown up in order to do so.


Would you argue the same thing here? Do the radical Muslim owners who simply believe they shouldn't have any dealings or support the actions of non-Muslims simply wish to be left alone? Would it be less of a burden on the Christian couple to just keep going to other places until they stop getting shot down?

The thing is, we have seen that many of the same people who answer yes to these types of questions regarding the first situation would say absolutely not in the case of the second. I am not saying anyone here has done this, but it has happened often enough in today's society that it is perfectly valid to ask questions like this.

Not only that, but it was argued previously that it is ok for any business to do turn down service to any group if they feel it violates their beliefs, which is exactly what the Indiana law allows. So both of these scenarios are very much within the realm of possibility and are now legally sanctioned under the provisions of the Indiana law.

So, when we understand what the real burdens actually are, I would answer that the burden is far less on the person being asked to make a cake with two man or woman figures on top of it than the other side to have to deal with all the ramifications of the Indiana law as stated above. If the situation was reversed I am willing to bet we would be saying something similar to this regarding ourselves.

So with this (rather lengthy) preamble in mind, let me answer this question:

What do you want the Christian side to give? All they want is to be left alone when it comes to these matters. They should have to pay for it now? Remember, it isn't the Christian business owner side that has suddenly changed in the last few years. They didn't ask for this crap.
Well, first off, I do think that some may just want to be left alone and be allowed to do their own thing, but not everyone is in that boat perhaps. Although, would it be so difficult to believe that a substantial number of people on the LGBT side simply want to just be left alone and be allowed to do their own thing too?

As for what the Christian side should give, I've already answered that several times but I will answer it again...

1) Make wedding cakes for both heterosexual and homosexual couples unless the cake has an explicit anti-Christian or pro-LGBT message written on the cake. Unless this is the case there is no threat or direct attack on the owner's beliefs.
2) Work with said LGBT community to come to a common agreement as to what would constitute as such.

For what the LGBT side should give...

1) Not make requests for cakes with the intention of making explicitly anti-Christian or pro-LGBT messages written on them. They shouldn't have to think about whether or not they will be turned away but in return they should also treat Christians as they want to be treated as well. They don't want to be attacked so they shouldn't attack them either.
2) Work with the Christian community to come to a common agreement as to what would constitute as such.

For both sides, they must accept that not everyone is going to be happy and a few accommodations will be necessary on both sides. The understanding is that most freedoms, including those on the Christian and LGBT side, are not 100% unlimited and unbounded. Neither side is going to get everything their way, nor should they, cause that's not the kind of nation we live in. We all allow or service people who do things that are against our beliefs every day, and even if we consider them an attack in some way that does not imply we have the right to deny services.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2956
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby Sstavix » Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:46 pm

So a gay couple goes in to some random bakery that has good reviews and gets turned away cause the Christian owner says the cake is a substantial burden on their beliefs. Then there are other bakeries who do the same elsewhere.

Now ok, let's say they figured the cake part out. Let's say they wished to go out on a date, they go in holding hands, and the restaurant says they can't be served because serving a gay couple would constitute support for their lifestyle and a substantial burden on the beliefs of the Christian restaurant owners. I imagine it would get kind of old if this happens more than once. Remember, laws like the one Indiana has passed specifically have allowed any business to be able to do this.

Now let's say even after all this they get married and now they want to go get a house. Simple enough, but now they are running into realtors who won't do it because according to them, providing a home would be supporting a gay marriage lifestyle and thus a substantial burden on their beliefs. So now this is yet another thing they can't do simply because of who they are. They aren't allowed to own property or at the very least a lot of unnecessary obstacles are being thrown up in order to do so.


I am guessing that some would argue that these businesses have a right to not violate their own consciences in all these cases correct? That each of these individual situations taken by themselves would not be nearly as much of a burden as forcing a Christian to do things against their beliefs right? Ok, so now consider this situation...

So a Christian couple goes in to some random bakery that has good reviews and gets turned away cause the Radical Muslim owner says the cake is a substantial burden on their beliefs. Then there are other bakeries who do the same elsewhere.

Now ok, let's say they figured the cake part out. Let's say they wished to go out on a date, they go in holding hands and are wearing things that clearly indicate their religion, and the restaurant says they can't be served because serving a gay couple would constitute support for their lifestyle and a substantial burden on the beliefs of the radical Muslim restaurant owners. I imagine it would get kind of old if this happens more than once. Remember, laws like the one Indiana has passed specifically have allowed any business to be able to do this.

Now let's say even after all this they get married and now they want to go get a house. Simple enough, but now they are running into realtors who won't do it because according to them, providing a home would be supporting a Christian lifestyle and thus a substantial burden on their beliefs. So now this is yet another thing they can't do simply because of who they are. They aren't allowed to own property or at the very least a lot of unnecessary obstacles are being thrown up in order to do so.


Would you argue the same thing here? Do the radical Muslim owners who simply believe they shouldn't have any dealings or support the actions of non-Muslims simply wish to be left alone? Would it be less of a burden on the Christian couple to just keep going to other places until they stop getting shot down?
I would say, in either case, the business owners are within their rights to discriminate against those they wish. Those who are discriminated against, the answer is simple - move to a community where their beliefs are not threatened.

That's one of the things that makes this country great. If we don't like what our state is doing, there aren't any obstacles that prevent us from moving to another state. It's one of the reasons why I tend to be opposed to laws that affect the entire nation. For example, I'm just as opposed to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as I am to one that mandates a strict definition of marriage as one man and one woman. It's not the Federal government's job to do this anyway, so if it needs to be regulated at all (and I don't think it needs to be) t should be at the local level.
Not only that, but it was argued previously that it is ok for any business to do turn down service to any group if they feel it violates their beliefs, which is exactly what the Indiana law allows. So both of these scenarios are very much within the realm of possibility and are now legally sanctioned under the provisions of the Indiana law.
Obviously, I take no issue with this. If this is how Indiana wants to conduct their state, so be it. :)


As for what the Christian side should give, I've already answered that several times but I will answer it again...

1) Make wedding cakes for both heterosexual and homosexual couples unless the cake has an explicit anti-Christian or pro-LGBT message written on the cake. Unless this is the case there is no threat or direct attack on the owner's beliefs.
2) Work with said LGBT community to come to a common agreement as to what would constitute as such.

For what the LGBT side should give...

1) Not make requests for cakes with the intention of making explicitly anti-Christian or pro-LGBT messages written on them. They shouldn't have to think about whether or not they will be turned away but in return they should also treat Christians as they want to be treated as well. They don't want to be attacked so they shouldn't attack them either.
2) Work with the Christian community to come to a common agreement as to what would constitute as such.

For both sides, they must accept that not everyone is going to be happy and a few accommodations will be necessary on both sides. The understanding is that most freedoms, including those on the Christian and LGBT side, are not 100% unlimited and unbounded. Neither side is going to get everything their way, nor should they, cause that's not the kind of nation we live in. We all allow or service people who do things that are against our beliefs every day, and even if we consider them an attack in some way that does not imply we have the right to deny services.
And if the communities can't get along, you seem to advocate for the government to come in and suppress the First amendment rights of one group or the other. This I absolutely disagree with.

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:03 am

Would you argue the same thing here? Do the radical Muslim owners who simply believe they shouldn't have any dealings or support the actions of non-Muslims simply wish to be left alone? Would it be less of a burden on the Christian couple to just keep going to other places until they stop getting shot down?
Yes. You keep reversing the scenario like it's going to make a difference. I hope now you see that this isn't us just being defensive of Christians. We oppose ANY attempt by the Government to force people to violate their conscience. If a Muslim owned restaurant doesn't want to serve me as a Christian then fine. I'll wipe the dust off my shoes and go elsewhere. I won't go whining to the Government about how those mean nasty Muslims won't feed me.

See how easy that is?
Although, would it be so difficult to believe that a substantial number of people on the LGBT side simply want to just be left alone and be allowed to do their own thing too?
Not at all, but walking into a bakery and demanding that the owner break his beliefs to enable them is nothing like wanting to be simply left alone. In this case they simply want to be ENABLED by someone who wants to just be left out of it.
1) Make wedding cakes for both heterosexual and homosexual couples unless the cake has an explicit anti-Christian or pro-LGBT message written on the cake. Unless this is the case there is no threat or direct attack on the owner's beliefs.
No. Because to make the cake, with the express purpose of being used in an event that celebrates sexual sin, is a violation of a Christian's belief. It makes absolutely no difference what's written on the cake.

Suppose you own a bakery and a representative from the local KKK chapter walks in and and wants you to bake a cake to help them celebrate the anniversary of the organization. Would you do it?

(I'm NOT comparing the LGBT community to the KKK. Just creating another less politically correct example.)
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
RoosterOnAStick
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 1:18 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby RoosterOnAStick » Sat Apr 11, 2015 10:44 am


Yes. You keep reversing the scenario like it's going to make a difference. I hope now you see that this isn't us just being defensive of Christians. We oppose ANY attempt by the Government to force people to violate their conscience. If a Muslim owned restaurant doesn't want to serve me as a Christian then fine. I'll wipe the dust off my shoes and go elsewhere. I won't go whining to the Government about how those mean nasty Muslims won't feed me.

See how easy that is?
I dont see it that way, for two reasons. First, your take I think is in the minority of Christians today. Many Christians see any instance of discrimination against them and get really upset.

Second, this is the situation (and much worse) in a lot of middle eastern countries today. I keep reversing the situation in hopes that the full implications are understood. The kinds of things you see in other countries is the kind of thing laws like this one will allow. It can open the door for more grevious things as well. You keep implying that this is no big deal, I keep trying to counter with we dont understand how badly this would truly affect us since we aren't living it. It is easy to sit here and talk about this in a detached setting like this but when we see Tue fruits of this kind of mentality in other countries we condemn them for human rights violations. So why is it ok to set a precedent for the same kind of persecution here?

Which leads to the third point, which is that people can be wrong or misguided in their moral compasses. Flawed consciences occur in all of us it is part of human nature. When different consciences clash, we must determine in at least a somewhat objective manner who is right and who is wrong. The issue with simply leaving it up to the individual alone is again, it removes any semblance of objectivity and as I have said before, becomes a moral free for all. This moral free for all mentality is one of the biggest problems in our society today. No one is allowed to make any objective assertions on truth or values anymore without getting hammered by post modern subjectivist outrage and this sort of thinking adds to that problem. If my conscience says I am allowed to be cruel to others based on their demographic and yours doesn't, wouldn't you agree that yours is right and mine is wrong? Wouldn't you think that if I were to act on that, something should be done to either prevent it or at least blunt the impact to reduce the amount of harm I could cause to others?

No. Because to make the cake, with the express purpose of being used in an event that celebrates sexual sin, is a violation of a Christian's belief. It makes absolutely no difference what's written on the cake.
Again, as I said in my initial postings, if it is just a cake, it is the property of the couple to do what they wish with it. It is no skin off of our back so to speak. We aren't talking about something which could be used as a weapon here, it is just a wedding cake.

As for sexual sin, we make cakes for non Christian couples who dont even get married in a church and are not only having sex before marriage but also saying how it is the right thing to do. That goes against my beliefs as well as it does yours I am sure. Do we still make cakes for them? Yes, we do. Would that be considered enough of a violation of beliefs to deny someone a wedding cake? I say no it doesn't and I am sure most of the bakeries that are denying gay wedding cakes probably have not either. Once again, we seem to have already accepted that as something that isn't ok in the eyes of God, but at least understandable or mitigated in some fashion. For this line of reasoning to be consistent one must deny cakes to any couple that wants sexual sin to be viewed as a good thing, whether heterosexual or homosexual. As far as we know, neither acknowledges they are doing anything wrong and thus neither are repenting correct? So why would we deny only homosexuals on the basis of celebrating sexual sin and not heterosexuals?

Suppose you own a bakery and a representative from the local KKK chapter walks in and and wants you to bake a cake to help them celebrate the anniversary of the organization. Would you do it?

(I'm NOT comparing the LGBT community to the KKK. Just creating another less politically correct example.)
Understood.

Although, I already answered this question when ccgr asked this. My answer was presented earlier in this thread using the same principles I laid out here.
“If the history of the 20th Century proved anything, it proved that however bad things were, human ingenuity could usually find a way to make them worse.” - Theodore Dalrymple

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3485
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:00 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby ArcticFox » Sat Apr 11, 2015 6:11 pm

I dont see it that way, for two reasons. First, your take I think is in the minority of Christians today. Many Christians see any instance of discrimination against them and get really upset.
So?
Second, this is the situation (and much worse) in a lot of middle eastern countries today. I keep reversing the situation in hopes that the full implications are understood.
Dude, you really need to stop assuming that I don't see the big picture just because I have a different take on it than you.

I'm not interested in what's going on with persecution in other countries, because the other countries you speak of don't have the same kinds of rights we have here. The abuses you speak of are hypothetical, while I'm talking about actual examples where religion is being suppressed for political correctness. It's just substituting one kind of attack on religious people for another.
Which leads to the third point, which is that people can be wrong or misguided in their moral compasses. Flawed consciences occur in all of us it is part of human nature. When different consciences clash, we must determine in at least a somewhat objective manner who is right and who is wrong. The issue with simply leaving it up to the individual alone is again, it removes any semblance of objectivity and as I have said before, becomes a moral free for all. This moral free for all mentality is one of the biggest problems in our society today. No one is allowed to make any objective assertions on truth or values anymore without getting hammered by post modern subjectivist outrage and this sort of thinking adds to that problem. If my conscience says I am allowed to be cruel to others based on their demographic and yours doesn't, wouldn't you agree that yours is right and mine is wrong? Wouldn't you think that if I were to act on that, something should be done to either prevent it or at least blunt the impact to reduce the amount of harm I could cause to others?
How can you talk about the problems with moral relativism while advocating Government action that enforces people to conform to moral relativism?
Again, as I said in my initial postings, if it is just a cake, it is the property of the couple to do what they wish with it.
Want to tell a Muslim that a cake with a graphic of the Prophet Mohammed on it is just a cake? Go ahead, I dare you.
As for sexual sin, we make cakes for non Christian couples who dont even get married in a church and are not only having sex before marriage but also saying how it is the right thing to do. That goes against my beliefs as well as it does yours I am sure. Do we still make cakes for them?
Show me one of those Christian bakeries willing to bake a cake celebrating fornication and I'll show you a baker who is a hypocrite.

Side note: Not all Christian denominations recognize church marriages exclusively. For many, even the secular commitment of a courthouse wedding will suffice. The LDS church is an example.
Although, I already answered this question when ccgr asked this. My answer was presented earlier in this thread using the same principles I laid out here.
I'll look for it later.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
amyjo88
Minecraft Server Admin
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:24 pm
Location: MidWest USA

Re: Indiana governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

Postby amyjo88 » Sat Apr 11, 2015 9:31 pm

So it seems to me this bill isn't about letting someone refuse to service a gay customer as it is protecting a business from being forced to break its moral code.

For example:

If a gay man walks into a bakery and wants to buy cupcakes, they can't turn him away because he's gay. Selling a cupcake - to anyone - doesn't violate your beliefs.

If a gay couple wants the baker to do a wedding cake (thus participating in the event) they can refuse to do so, because to be involved in an event they see as immoral DOES violate their beliefs.

The same would hold true for caterers, photographers, etc.

I hope the language in the bill is specific enough about that otherwise it'll get shot down for being too vague.
Great examples, thank you.


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest