Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

This is so confused that it is probably not worth attempting to correct, but I will give it a try.Marriage is a civil union that is regulated by state law in ways that cannot conflict with the constitution.A wedding is a ceremony during which marriage vows, which do have legal effect are exchanged, but which also includes a bunch of rituals and celebration.Neither of those things involves the Bible in any way.Your religion may indeed have very strong things to say about marriage. But those things are beside the point of what those couples are doing. They just want a cake memorializing their choice to become a unit under the laws of whatever state they live in. Period. That's all the cake is for. They don't really want the sanction that you want to deny them.Viewed that way, what you want to do is reinterpret their ceremony under your view so that you can refuse to make a cake. That's idiotic. To demonstrate the fact that it is idiotic, we can note that even if the called the cake a civil ceremony cake, you still would not make it regardless of the fact that such a title would complete divorce it from whatever it is you want to call marriage.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So you would have no problem baking a cake for that civil union ceremony? A wedding under state law is, in fact a type of civil union recognized by the state. I don't see any problem with my argument.It is you and not the participants who insist that folks are performing a Biblical ritual which you must actively resist.

In what way is this discrimination at all. How is what you describe different from a pizza parlor deciding not to serve gyro sandwiches?There is one other important distinction I would make. A Christian bakery appears to be a bakery run by Christians rather than a bakery that caters to Christians, so the issue is not one of choice of cuisine but a choice of whom to serve.

It is not a matter of thinking. The customers know exactly what they are doing. They are following state and national law. You are recasting what they are doing based on your own beliefs, prejudices, or whatever into something you can whine about.

That's fine. He is entitled to his opinion. But he is not entitled to require other folks to suffer the indignities he himself was not willing to suffer.

You are right. Why do we make white bakeries serve niggers?

\
Perhaps, but you definition of intolerance appears to include tolerance for intolerance, which causes the conundrum you are expressing here.

I can imagine a situation where a cake sculptor, who accepted commissions or contracts for specialty cakes, or even specialty cake figurines could refuse to make a cake; relying on the thirteenth amendment for support. But not a bakery shop that offers goods for sale out of a store front and that routinely makes wedding cakes for all comers.I think a wedding photographer, soloist, or organ player would present a much closer question. And I would be more sympathetic to a bake shop that did everything except customize the cake for gayness. But for a bakery that simply turned down customers because the otherwise routinely garish wedding cake was going to be used by a gay couple? I have no sympathy for their position whatsoever.Edited by NoNukes, : wrote 2nd amendment when I meant 13th.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You replied to two Faith messages in a reply to a single PaulK message. I don't suppose there is an easy way to fix that.

Nobody is a bigot in their own head.

I do appear to lack tolerance for intolerance. Perhaps I am bigoted in that way...I'm not perfect. I do have impulses that I have to fight. Unlikely you, I don't believe Jesus wants me to be a bigot.

Damn, a message full of intolerance calling me names, all the while complaining about name calling.You are a piece of work.

I don't think we can spot Faith her territory here. Some Christians react in this way, but not all. For example, some pastors perform gay weddings, some churches have gay pastors. There is nothing inherently Christian about the position Faith takes here, just as there is nothing inherently German in holocaust denial.

This a pretty strange thing to say. Certainly there are large areas of overlap between Catholic teaching and Protestant doctrine, but just as clearly there are departures, many of which have been the subject of discussion here. Faith is pretty much hardcore fundy Protestant. I don't think it is a scheme at all. I think her hatred for Catholicism is completely sincere. Her hatred is classic fundy Protestant doctrine. She does indeed ignore Protestant atrocities in new threads even after having acknowledged them in other threads, but that's a separate issue.

It is fairly obvious what the equivalent solution would be. Just make the cake without making it gay specific. The problem is that you would not accept that solution.