Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

But I don't disagree with it. The paragraph you quote is actually very attractive to me as a statement for the secularist interpretation, I've never seen it put quite that way before. There's nothing in it that allows such things as punishing teachers and students for bringing Bibles to school for instance, which happens occasionally under the mistaken notion that that is somehow "establishing a religion." It's that kind of stuff that drives Christians crazy because it's a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. I think it also should protect Christian business owners from the kind of legal abuse they've been receiving for acting on their Biblical objections to gay marriage.But I'm saying I think we should give it all up anyway. Whether you see it or not Christianity* is being restricted and punished these days against the Free Exercise Clause, more and more in many ways, and such punishments and restrictions are loudly applauded at EvC. So I'm for Christians giving up any form of dependence on the culture and government whatever.Yours truly,
*Fanatically Conservative and Paranoid Fundamentalist Christian." See Message 716Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You did disagree with it, in Message 709Do you think it should also allow Christian business owners to refuse to serve blacks? Persons of different religions? Should it allow Muslim cab drivers to refuse to carry fares that have alcohol in their belongings? Should it allow Hasidic Jews to discriminate against women?If you don't think all of those things should be allowed, where to you draw with line? Why there?

I draw the line where the Bible draws the line. We will not serve a gay wedding which is a violation of the Bible. Period.

Wonderful.But what about all the other situations I mentioned? Different people draw different lines in different places. Should the law allow all of them to refuse to serve the people they wish to?

Sure, shut down the Muslim cab drivers if they won't drive anyone carrying alcohol, shut down the Hasidic business if they won't serve women, certainly shut down any business that refuses to serve blacks or other religions, of course, goes without saying.

And by what reasoning do you deny those people the right to conform to their religious beliefs but claim for yourself the right to conform to your beliefs?

I'm not claiming the right, I'm saying shut us all down.

In Message 721, you said, "I think it also should protect Christian business owners from the kind of legal abuse they've been receiving for acting on their Biblical objections to gay marriage." Are you now retracting that opinion?

No, it looks like it should protect us. But according to you it doesn't. I'm just going on to agree with you then, that you should just shut down any of those you listed if we/they refuse to serve the people designated abe: -- or in the case of a gay wedding, the situation, not the people since the people are not refused other services. /abeI do wonder, however, if you would shut down a black bakery for refusing to make a cake celebrating a Klan anniversary, or a Jewish bakery for refusing to make a cake celebrating Hitler and that sort of thing. Hm?ABE: Again, I remind you that the Christian businesses are not refusing to serve gays, they are refusing a particular service.. Period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I will confess that my understanding of the law in this area is not as clear as it could be. But I believe that, generally, businesses are allowed to refuse service where that service includes expressive activity where the message they are asked to express is one they disagree with. And that is the case whether the disagreement is based on religion, or any other reason. The idea is that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause prohibits governments from requiring people to express ideas they disagree with. Situations that I understand courts have approved include a bakery offering to bake the cake but leave off the offending message, leaving it to the customer to supply that themself. I have not considered this question extensively, but at first blush that seems like a fair compromise situation.Applying this rule to the situation of a gay marriage, a bakery cannot refuse to bake the cake, but can refuse to include messages supporting gay marriage, and perhaps could refuse to put two same sex spouses on top of the cake. The mere baking of a cake doesn't suggest support for the occasion for which the cake is baked, and the baker isn't required to show support for the occasion through any expressive conduct included in the baking.

The problem with your solution is that a wedding cake is a very special original and expensive creation with elaborate handmade decorations. There is no writing on it but the whole creation says "wedding." The designer often works to personalize it in various ways for the clients. The making of ANY such creation by a Christian* is not possible for a gay wedding.Nor is the supplying of decorative flowers by a Christian florist, which would require installing them, nor the taking of wedding photographs by a Christian photographer, which would require a personal participation in the event.All of these businesses have been sued for their refusal of these particular services. Any other cake or baked goods, no problem, flowers galore for any other purpose, no problem, portrait photos or anything for a nonwedding context I'm sure would be no problem for the photographer either.So there is really no such thing in this case as "the mere baking of a cake." A baker in Colorado has been sued, a couple in Oregon had to close their shop and work from home but she no longer makes wedding cakes and the husband had to get a job driving a truck; I haven't heard about the florist recently but last I heard she was being sued.abe: *Excuse me, a FCPF, that is, a Fanatically Conservative and Paranoid Fundamentalist Christian of course.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let me take a half step back for a minute.First, I'll note that not all Christians share your view. I believe your position is a minority one, losing adherents daily. In this regard, it is a close parallel to the way churches have responded to broad societal changes in the past; i.e. slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc. In a decade or two, I suspect opposition to gay marriage will be even lower than opposition to interracial marriage is today.Second, it's far from clear to me that there is any meaningful difference between making a cake for a wedding or for funeral, a birthday party or just the hell of it. I've been married twice and neither time was there the kind of intimate interaction between us and any of the various professionals we hired. In short, I'm convinced that some Christians are inflating the level and kind of offense they experience.Tell me, do you distinguish between objecting to a gay marriage and objecting to an interracial marriage? I'm not now asking about what the First Amendment says. I'm asking if you think a baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding for religion reasons?

Yes, I did go back and correct the term to Fanatically Conservative and Paranoid Fundamentalist Christians. Those are the ones being fined or driven out of business. I don't know if we're "losing adherents daily" but it doesn't matter, as Jesus said "the Gates of Hell will not prevail against us." Well, there is actually no parallel whatever, but I don't suppose I can convince you or anyone else here. Slavery is not biblically defensible and never was, no matter what historical rationalizations were trumped up for it; there is nothing in the Bible against women's having the right to vote or other rights in society and Jesus was a great liberator of women in a time when they truly were second-class citizens; and so on.But homosexual acts are clearly defined in scripture as sin and marriage is clearly and unequivocally defined as between a man and a woman. Rationalizations for it are being trumped up for it, but no FCPF will ever cave in on it. I have no idea if your prophecy will come true or not but if it does all it will mean is that more of the Church has gone apostate and abandoned God's word. But there will always be a remnant of true believers. Shouldn't it be the Christians themselves who make such a call? Why would they want to bring all that misery down on their heads? They consider it a violation of God's Law and they will not do it. No. There is nothing in God's word, rightly understood, against interracial marriage.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It may surprise you to learn that in the past most Christians believed biblical support for slavery, biblical opposition to women's suffrage and biblical opposition to interracial marriage was every bit as high as you believe biblical opposition to gay marriage is today. And those who believed those things in the past would call you exactly the same kind of apostate that you believe supporters of marriage equality are. There is substantial evidentiary support for these facts, they are not mere supposition on my part. Yes and no.It's well-established that people are capable of self deception and can easily fall victim to post hoc rationalization. That's all people, regardless of religion, education level or any other variable you want to include. And one area where it's easiest to fall into the trap is the rationalization of pre-existing prejudices.You deny the existence of biblical support for slavery and biblical condemnation of interracial marriage, yet 150 years ago, those were very common if not majority opinions. What's changed? Not the bible.It's society. We now know slavery is evil. We now know it's unjust to deny people the right to marry the person they love just because of racial difference. Society is well on it's way to understanding that it's unjust to deny people the right to marry the person they love because of their sexual orientation.Thus, when someone claims that it's their religion that prevents forbids them from baking a cake for use in a particular kind of ceremony, I don't think we're obligated to take them at their word. I think we're entitled to probe their reasons, cross examine them to determine if they are telling the truth, and break down their reasons to see if they are truly based on religion, or simply a self-serving way to justify a prejudice they learned somewhere else.You say, "There is nothing in God's word, rightly understood, against interracial marriage." Even today, there are some people who disagree with you. Why7 should your understanding of scripture trump theirs?

Yes it would "surprise" me because it is not true that MOST Christians thought there was biblical support for slavery. It was CHRISTISANS who opposed slavery. Wilberforce, Newton. And it was just habit and culture that opposed women's rights and trumped up Bible rationjalizations. But I do not want to argue this with you. We are already way off topic.No the Bible did not change, cultural forces merely misused it. But there is no way the Bible can ever be made to support gay marriage except by the same rationalizations and subterfuges that disallowed interracial marriage and women's rights and promoted slavery.But none of this matters. You aren't going to talk me or any other Christian --- meaning of course FCPF ---- out of this. I don't care whose belief "trumps" whose and a nonChristian is not the one to decide these things.No FCPF will ever give in on gay marriage, it's truly unequivocal in God's word. So if you want to run us out of business for refusing to serve gay marriage I guess you will.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.