Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 567 of 1484 (802967)
03-22-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by Faith
03-22-2017 12:39 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:
But again, I think the two situations are equivalent myself.
So if you believe they're equivalent then it's fine to discuss writing on a cake? You're sure this time? You do recall that you were earlier drawing significant distinctions between the two as your reasons for wanting to discuss one but not the other?
Jesus would kindly tell the gays to repent and be saved, He died for their sins, He would most certainly not join in anything that violates God's marriage ordinance which He himself confirmed in Matthew 19.
Jesus would write in microscopic letters, "Speak softly. Repent of shouting at people in large type and be saved." Then he would say, "God loves everyone and wants them to have wedding cakes, including gays."
The main point is as PaulK says, that there *is* a significant distinction between a messageless cake and a cake with a message. They are not equivalent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 12:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 1:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 573 of 1484 (802973)
03-22-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by Faith
03-22-2017 1:54 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:
You seemed to making the whole thing to be about writing on a cake...
Well now you're just making things up. You weren't even replying to me when you mentioned The Guardian article. You weren't replying to anyone. Your Message 552 was a general reply titled, "The Main Points," and one of your main points was that The Guardian article, which was about cake writing, "brought out the important point."
...and completely ignoring the subject of this thread. And you were saying they aren't the same thing in your imperious know-it-all style
I'm pretty much saying the same thing as other people. The two are not the same thing. PaulK is drawing the right distinctions, I won't repeat his arguments again.
If you want to consider it in its proper position go ahead, but I've already answered it.
No, you haven't answered. What you mean is that you have no answer.
I could not care less what their meaning to YOU is.
You seem to care about meaning not at all.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Move misplaced quotation mark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 1:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 2:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 578 of 1484 (802980)
03-22-2017 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by Faith
03-22-2017 2:20 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:
What is this need to smear the Christian bakers who are only acting on their understanding of God's requirement?
God's requirement? There's no such requirement. There is no Lordly edict to discriminate against people for their lifestyle. God loves everyone. Jesus (a carpenter) would gladly make shelves for the gay couple. Were he a baker he would bake them a cake. Jesus never asked Mary Magdalene to repent. Try this passage on for size:
Mark 2:15-17 15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?
17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
Jesus had no problem eating with sinners, but your baker won't even sell the gays a cake. A little WWJD is needed in your philosophy, because it sure isn't evident much.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 3:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 579 of 1484 (802983)
03-22-2017 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Faith
03-22-2017 2:25 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:
The situations are the same as far as the baker's conscience is concerned and that is that.
No, that isn't that. They're both things that bother your baker's conscience, but they are not the same thing, not in reality and not in the baker's mind. That's because it is obvious to anyone that caking writing and cake baking are not same thing, not even close. The implications of writing a specific message must obviously run far deeper then the mere sale of a generic cake.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 2:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 3:02 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 591 of 1484 (803000)
03-22-2017 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Faith
03-22-2017 3:01 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:
As usual you are making garbage out of the point.
Meaning you don't have an answer again?
Jesus was always kind to sinners. What Jesus never did was treat sinners as not sinners, or advocate disobeying God's laws. He might do all kinds of things for gays,...
Yeah, he'd bake 'em a cake and sing at the reception.
...but He would not support their marrying because that is a violation of God's law.
Hmmm, interesting point. Would Jesus support same sex marriage? I don't know, the Bible writers didn't include any stories that tell us. Certainly if someone like Jesus, who was all about love and understanding, were alive today he would support it.
That sort of brings us to the thread's title, Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity. Marriage is an institution that spans all religions and cultures, so how could gay marriage be an attack on one single religion? Why isn't gay marriage an attack on Islam or Buddhism or Judaism?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 3:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 4:18 PM Percy has replied
 Message 596 by Modulous, posted 03-22-2017 4:26 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 620 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2017 10:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 592 of 1484 (803001)
03-22-2017 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by Faith
03-22-2017 3:02 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:
As far as the baker's conscience goes, both the writing on the cake, and the wedding cake in the context defined, affirm the legitimacy of gay marriage, which is THE reason for refusing either of them.
What interaction with a gay couple wouldn't be interpreted as affirming the legitimacy of gay marriage? How is letting them in the store or saying hello to them on the street not affirming gay marriage? Once you've singled them out for special treatment there's nowhere to draw the line.
Writing a message is the only objection that makes sense. One shouldn't be compelled to write things one doesn't believe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 3:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 6:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 618 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2017 10:22 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 601 of 1484 (803010)
03-22-2017 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by Faith
03-22-2017 4:18 PM


Re: The Main Points
Faith writes:
Why is it only Christian wedding services that are sued?
Because wedding-related Judaic, Islamic and Buddhist businesses don't deny service to homosexual couples? Hmmm?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Faith, posted 03-22-2017 4:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 628 of 1484 (803055)
03-23-2017 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 618 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2017 10:22 AM


Re: The Main Points
New Cat's Eye writes:
But someone should be compelled to sell something they don't believe in?
I think maybe you meant to ask this differently, like whether someone should be compelled to sell to someone engaged in a practice they object to? Phrased more generally the question is whether there can be legitimate reasons for a business to select which members of the public it will serve and which it won't. With the exception of things like bars selling drinks to drunks or convenience stores selling cigarettes to minors, it's deemed discrimination and businesses aren't allowed to do that.
Genuine question, what is it about writing something, but not selling something, that makes it make sense to avoid compelling someone to do it?
If you look at selling the thing as providing a service to the public, and therefore must be provided without discrimination, then why not also include writing the thing as a service that must be provided without discrimination?
I'm asking in principle, I understand that speech is explicitly protected and selling isn't. But I'm not sure I really see the difference.
Our baker sells wedding cakes to anyone all the time, but he never writes words that conflict with his fundamental beliefs, such as "All the best in your marriage Chuck and Dave." Plus there's freedom of speech - compelling someone to write something he finds abhorrent doesn't sound very free.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2017 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by Faith, posted 03-23-2017 11:37 AM Percy has replied
 Message 637 by NoNukes, posted 03-23-2017 12:18 PM Percy has replied
 Message 644 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2017 3:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 662 of 1484 (803119)
03-24-2017 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 631 by Faith
03-23-2017 11:37 AM


Re: Not persons but a political/religious belief or concept
Faith writes:
I have to protest as usual that you are misrepresenting the situation again:
No, you still misunderstand the Tatchell piece:
The baker is not objecting to "someone," he's objecting to an illegitimate definition of marriage. Even Peter Tatchell, the gay activist in the UK who wrote the Guardian opinion piece, argued that there was no discrimination against persons by the Christian bakery, but against an "idea," the idea of gay marriage.
Tatchell writes:
Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion...
[The plaintiff's]cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order.
In the American cases, the request for a wedding cake was refused not because the customers were gay but because of the service asked for. There is no evidence that their sexuality was the reason the order was declined. No other order would have been declined, just the order that legitimizes gay marriage.
But Tatchell is saying the opposite. His article is all about the message. In Tatchell's example, if I were purchasing the cake with the message then the baker would object, while if there were no message he would not object. The message makes all the difference in the Tatchell piece.
As NCE was apparently trying to say, the bakers should not be compelled to supply a service that legitimizes a concept to which they conscientiously object.
This gets back to the question of how selling a cake legitimizes a wedding.
A baker can't pick and choose which members of the public he sells his unannotated cakes to, but I think he's got a good basis for refusal if he objects to the message.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by Faith, posted 03-23-2017 11:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 663 of 1484 (803121)
03-24-2017 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by NoNukes
03-23-2017 12:18 PM


Re: The Main Points
NoNukes writes:
When a baker writes "Happy Birthday to You" on a gay person's cake, do you think he is expressing his pleasure that the gay person was born? Or that he is participating in a celebration in any way
I think he's probably wished many people "Happy Birthday," he's probably written it on many cakes, he thinks it's a fine idea to give these wishes on such occasions, so he would of course have no problem with it. But he doesn't accept gay marriage and finds the idea abhorrent, so he of course objects to writing "Support Gay Marriage" on a cake. In neither case does he believe that writing the message would be "participating in a celebration in any way."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by NoNukes, posted 03-23-2017 12:18 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 664 of 1484 (803122)
03-24-2017 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 644 by New Cat's Eye
03-23-2017 3:19 PM


Re: The Main Points
New Cat's Eye writes:
No. You think its okay to say the baker is wrong to refuse to sell a cake for a gay wedding, but it is also okay for a person to refuse to write something promoting homosexuality - speech is protected, selling services is not.
Yes, I think that's correct.
What if the service of baking a cake was determined to be a form of speech? Would that then mean that cake baking would be protected too?
You mean what if the Supreme Court ruled that cake baking was a form of speech, the way they ruled money is a form of speech? Yes, then that would mean that cake baking is protected, too.
My question is what is the difference between speech and service providing such that one is protected and one isn't.
Speech is the expression of an idea, and one shouldn't be compelled to express ideas one objects to.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-23-2017 3:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 665 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-24-2017 10:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1019 of 1484 (824918)
12-05-2017 10:43 AM


Even Stupid Cases Make it to the Supreme Court
Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It's a very simple case. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, refused to sell the same wedding cake he would sell any straight couple to gay couple Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig. That's discrimination pure and simple. Jack Phillips will lose this case.
Here's a New York Times editorial on the case: The Colorado Cake Case Is as Easy as Pie
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1020 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2017 10:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1025 by Chiroptera, posted 06-04-2018 7:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 1259 of 1484 (838211)
08-16-2018 7:02 AM


Jack Phillips Has Found Another Cake He Can't Bake
Jack Phillips is at it again. He's the Colorado baker who gained national attention when his case fighting for his right not to bake cakes for gay weddings went to the Supreme Court. This time he has refused to bake a birthday cake for a transgender woman celebrating her seventh anniversary of coming out as transgender. Mr. Phillips suspects, not without cause, conspiratorial shenanigans since the request for the cake came on the same day that the Supreme Court accepted his case, June 26th of last year.
The complaint states:
quote:
Phillips declined to create the cake with the blue-and-pink design because it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex the status of being male or female is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed.
The birthday of the HRC (Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT group in the country) is coming up in October. We should all call Jack Phillips bakeshop (Masterpiece Bakeshop, 303-763-5754) at the end of September to order a cake in celebration. The writing on the cake should read, "Happy 32nd Birthday HRC".
Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit that funded Phillips previous case, said:
quote:
You would think that a clear Supreme Court decision against their first effort would give them pause. But it seems like some in the state government are hellbent on punishing Jack for living according to his faith. If that isn’t hostility, what is?
The first time around, it looked like Colorado was biased against people of faith. Now it just looks like the state is biased against people named ‘Jack Phillips.’ In moving ahead on this new case, the government is yet again confirming that it applies its law in an arbitrary and unequal way, which the Supreme Court has already said it cannot do.
Source: Baker claims religious persecution again this time after denying cake for transgender woman
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1260 by jar, posted 08-16-2018 9:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1271 by Chiroptera, posted 08-16-2018 1:00 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024