Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

Tangle writes responds to Modulous:

quote:

---

quote:

---

They are not the people who are saying gay folk are being prejudiced against Christians when they make formal complaints to regulatory boards after being illegally harmed by them.

---

I think your emotions have got the better of you.

---

And there we have it.If someone disagrees with you, they're "emotional." Dare I say, "hysterical"?So a "formal complaint to regulatory boards after being illegally harmed" is an act of emotion?Then what's the point of having a regulatory board if the only time people use it is when they're being emotional?Of course, there's the assumption that somehow "being emotional" is bad. I mean, how dare somebody actually care about their own lives and take actions to improve their emotional state!Especially if causes someone else to feel the emotion of irritation!I think your emotions have got the better of you.

JonF writes:

quote:

---

"Cleave" is probably the only word in the English language that is its own antonym.

---

There's actually quite a lot:He was bound (restrained) and gagged and put on a midnight train bound (moving) for Georgia.It is custom (commonplace) to get a custom (unique) cake for a wedding, but certainly not required.After you dust (apply) the board with flour, be sure to dust (remove) the table to get rid of the excess.After the cutting remark, it was interesting to see how fast (quick) his tongue held fast (stopped).The light was out (invisible) so we could see the stars that were out (visible).He weathered (endured) the weather until it weathered (eroded) him away.There are more, of course.

PaulK runs away:

quote:

---

And you lie again.

---

Says the one denying his own words.

quote:

---

If I meant that I would have said it. Don't forget, people can go back and read my posts.

---

Yep. Especially when I quote you. So when you say you didn't say it, we can tell that you're not exactly being honest.

quote:

---

I have tried a rephrasing.

---

Then why are so many of your posts resulting in you saying something you didn't mean? Remember, we can see your posts so when you claim you didn't write what you have written, we can determine if you're being honest or not.I suppose that makes you very proud.Shall we spin the merry-go-round again?

Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

You are aggressively missing the point, as usual.

---

You are aggressively avoiding the direct question, as usual. Let's try again. Third time, Faith:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

The reason to point out that the wedding cake is a big project is to emphasize the personal involvement that engages the baker's conscience.

---

And how is that any different from any other custom cake?Fourth time, Faith:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?

quote:

---

There is no issue if a cake is bought off the shelf.

---

Huh? What baker just does a slap-dash job on pre-made cakes? That's not a very good baker. When I was a cake decorator, I did everything I could to make our pre-made cakes look special. That's how you get them sold, after all: By making them appealing.

quote:

---

It also doesn't matter how big a project a birthday cake might also be

---

Then why did you say the following in Message 362If it isn't about the size of the project, why did you harp on about a "small affair"? Why emphasize the "special custom creation"? Why mention the "days to put together"? Why focus on that it "costs a LOT of money"?Most importantly, why did you directly state that it "is a big deal" if that is irrelevant? Second time on this one:Do you really think that this cake is a "big deal" to make? If it isn't, then if a gay couple came in and asked for that cake, the baker should have no trouble selling it since there's no effort in it at all, right? You could whip that up in less than an hour in your sleep.

quote:

---

a birthday cake doesn't engage the baker's conscience.

---

Says who? What sort of baker doesn't "engage their conscience" when doing their job?Fifth time, Faith:How does this cake: Suddenly "engage the baker's conscience" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?Remember, Faith, one of your own examples of a wedding cake was actually a birthday cake. The only reason you chose it was because it was fancy. You directly stated that birthday cakes aren't a "big deal," that only wedding cakes are.Now that you've seen that birthday cakes are just as big of a deal, just as personal, just as engaged with the baker's "conscience," you're trying to run away.What is the difference? You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause but have the audacity to suggest that maybe other ways of pursuing it are now possible.

---

Which is exactly the point you and NoNukes and PaulK are missing:If you think suing someone for violation of anti-discrimination laws is "alienating," you aren't a friend.It's just another way of literally saying, "Shut up." You are literally telling people to shut up.I asked this, but never got an answer:How many times does a person need to be discriminated against before it becomes "worth it"? You want to get married so you go to a baker. They deny you because you're gay. OK...so you go to the next one, but they also deny you because you're gay. So you try a third one and they finally say they're good with it.So you start looking for a florist and this time, it takes five tries. But with the photographer, you only need to get to the fourth one.At what point do you get to say that enough is enough? Three? Five? Twelve? And why does that last one have to be the one to bear the brunt of the bad behavior of all the ones that came before? They didn't do anything different from all the others who got a free pass to deny you services because you're gay. Why do they have to be the one to be made an example of?Or is there no limit? Everybody in town should be allowed to deny you services because you're gay and you should just accept that it's "trivial" to do so?After all, you wouldn't want to risk "alienating your friends" by making a fuss, right?What's the point of having anti-discrimination laws if you aren't allowed to use them lest you "alienate your friends"?Hint: Are they really your friends?I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you can't support gay people as full and equal members of society in all areas and situations without hesitation or question and do so full-throatedly, then you're a homophobic bigot. It really is that simple.Nobody is expecting you to take up arms.You are expected to stop being part of the problem.And telling people to shut up because you're "alienated" by their demand for the dignity and respect that comes with being a full and equal member of society is part of the problem.I'm reminded of some of the discussions surrounding the movie, Get Out. Without giving anything away, one of the questions people are talking about is at what point should the main character have gotten out? At what point should he have said, "Wait a minute. Something's not right here and it needs to be addressed now before we go any further"?And for a lot of people, it's right at the very beginning in the setup. This is part of the trailer, so I'm still not giving anything away, but the black man and his white girlfriend are going to visit her parents for the weekend. He asks, "Have you told them I'm black?" And she says she hasn't.It becomes a bit of a point and she manages to convince him to go anyway (again, that doesn't give anything away). But that's the first big flag that something isn't right. And would you call it "petty" if he had said, "No, this is important to me. I don't want to show up at your parents' house and have it be a surprise. At the very least, I'm going to be anxious about their response so why don't we settle this first before we go?" And it's very interesting noting the responses from black people compared to the responses from white people. White people tend to think the setup isn't such a big deal. Her explanation rings true with them and they don't think it's a big deal.The black people, on the other hand, immediately see it as a problem. Do their opinions not count? Didn't we learn anything from last summer and Black Lives Matter? When the people who are being discriminated against are telling you their experience and what it means to them, the privileged group doesn't get to dismiss it as "trivial." That dismissal as if you know better is part of the problem.Because here's another hint, since the question is how many lines have to be crossed before it is no longer considered "petty": Surely you didn't think that the first time these gay people have ever encountered discrimination was when they went to choose a baker for the wedding, did you? If there is a threshold for how many times you get to be discriminated against for free before you can do something about it, that limit was reached a long time ago. Or do they all have to be for the same thing? The discrimination of the bakers is separate and cannot be accounted for when examining the discrimination of the florists? You have to be discriminated against the minimum number of times by the same type of service before you aren't "alienating" your "friends"? Is there a temporal restriction, too? If you get turned away from hotel rooms but only every couple of months or so, they don't count? In the calculus of whether or not something is "alienating," there's an expiration date?Exactly what is the calculus to determine if it is "alienating" to stand up for your rights?As I was driving to my friends' this weekend, I was listening to The Splendid Table on NPR. They had a segment about handicapped people going to eat in restaurants and they asked one of the guests what would be an OK level of denial of service. Is there a scenario where they could be understanding and realize that the owners weren't in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act?"None." One of them was an educator of people with disabilities and he asked how he could stand in front of them and tell them that they shouldn't demand equal access? How do you tell people that they aren't deserving of full and equal participation? That people should be allowed to discriminate against them and they should just get over it? "Where's the bathroom?" "It's downstairs." The fact that the tables can't accommodate a wheelchair. That the doors aren't at least 34 inches wide.Oh, whether or not you're going to do what it takes to correct the problem is up to you. But there's a difference between wanting to do it.....and being told to shut up about it because you'll "alienate your friends" if you do it.Nobody is expecting you to take up arms.But they are expecting you to stop being part of the problem.

Faith avoids the direct question again:

quote:

---

Good grief man, THINK.

---

Strange. That's everybody else's argument to you, Faith: THINK.There is no difference between a wedding cake and a birthday cake. Everything that goes into a wedding cake goes into a birthday cake. So why can a baker refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple if it's their wedding but not if it's their birthday?

quote:

---

IF YOU CAN GET A WEDDING CAKE OFF THE SHELF THEN IT ISN'T A PROBLEM FOR THE BAKER

---

Considering that the baker "engaged their conscience" when they made the cake, off-the-shelf or not, why is it a problem when the customer comes in and asks, "Could you do it in blue?" Why is it not a problem if the cake is already made but suddenly is a request for child sacrifice if the baker has to make a new one?

quote:

---

It's when the baker has to make it personally specifically for the wedding, WHICH IS THE CASE IN MOST BAKERIES, that it becomes a problem in the case of a gay wedding.

---

But that's no different from any other cake the bakery makes. Remember, Faith, I used to do this for a living. What is different about a wedding cake? You keep avoiding this question.Third time, Faith:You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

Tangle responds to me:

quote:

---

I see that like Modulous you have a hair trigger when the word 'prejudice' is used against you.

---

BWAHAHAHA!Oh, the irony is strong in you, isn't it? Look at how you are triggered at being considered a homophobic bigot. So triggered are you that you lash out and accuse everybody else. So much so that you instantly ran away from your argument, claiming that there is some sort of "context" by which being told to shut up doesn't, you know, mean being told to shut up.In classic Faith fashion, you try to change the subject onto everything except the issue at hand: Your abusive and ill-willed treatment of gay people exercising their rights.Question: How does the gay couple next door interfere with you and your marriage?
Answer: It doesn't.
Conclusion: Getting upset over the gay couple next door getting married is silly.Question: How does the discriminated party exercising their rights interfere with you?
Answer: It doesn't.
Conclusion: Getting upset over the discriminated party exercising their rights is silly."But, they might lose!" Indeed, they might. But if they do, then that means the discriminated party never had the protection of the law. Your argument is akin to saying that we shouldn't open the umbrella to protect us from the rain on the chance that it might not work. What's the point of carrying an umbrella against the rain if you aren't going to use it when it's raining? Do you really care that other people would feel "alienated" by the fact that you're staying dry?

quote:

---

It's possible to be supportive of your cause but have some different ideas about how it might be pursued.

---

Indeed."Shut up," isn't one of them. That is the opposite of "supportive."Nobody is expecting you to take up arms.You are being expected to stop being part of the problem.

quote:

---

It would be nice to be not sworn at

---

It would be nice not to be discriminated against.Shouldn't you just get over it? After all, it's "petty" of you to complain over something as "trivial" as being sworn at.

quote:

---

threatened

---

What threat? For someone who just pontificated about how I "didn't read, or read and ignored" what you said, you clearly didn't read, or read and ignored - in classic Faith fashion - Modulous' comment.He hoped you did *NOT* get discriminated against. He hopes that you will somehow understand how your attitude is part of the problem and change. But, he is worried that the only way it will happen is if you or someone you love is discriminated against...and that would be a horrible thing and he is unwilling to have you come to this knowledge if that is the price to be paid for it: From whence comes the impression that you are being "threatened" in that?

quote:

---

and abused for daring to mention that people can be different.

---

Shouldn't you shut up about this "abuse" lest you alienate your friends?Maybe you've heard that said before about this very subject?

PaulK spins the merry-go-round again:

quote:

---

And Rrhain the lying liar lies again. What a surprise.

---

So you're denying you wrote what you wrote? What a surprise.See, when I quote you fully in complete context, including providing the links back to the original post so that people don't have to go looking for it in case they are concerned that I didn't provide complete context, your claim that I am "hoping other people will miss the context" is trivially shown to be false.

quote:

---

You have never quoted me denying my own words.

---

You really should stop forgetting that we can see the posts and can call them up.In Message 182, I quoted your entire post from Message 145. In fact, I quoted my entire response to it.But then you stated in Message 185: So yes, you have been quoted denying your own words.You made an argument. I responded. You contradicted yourself. I corrected you. You refused to accept that correction and continue to refuse to accept it. I was prepared to accept that perhaps you might want to clarify, but we are well past that time.But spin the merry-go-round again! I'm sure you'll get something new this time!C'mon! You know you want to.SPIN IT!

Faith writes:

quote:

---

There is no such thing as sexual orientation

---

Really? You find other women sexually attractive? What sort of woman floats your boat, Faith? Are you a breast gal? Or is it all about the base? What sort of sex do you fantasize about having with a woman? Do you want to gently flick your tongue around her nether regions, suckle upon her bosom? What do you wake up in the middle of night having dreamt about that has you panting and sweating and begging to be made real? What is it you wish a woman would do to you so that your toes would curl back and you'd scream out her name forevermore?What's that? You mean you don't actually find women sexually enticing?Then congratulations, Faith. You've got a sexual orientation.

quote:

---

homosexual acts are sin.

---

So is having a physical deformity (Leviticus 21). Does that mean there are no amputees? People who are just willfully rejecting the fact that they actually have two legs?

quote:

---

Comparing it to race is in itself sin.

---

Denying the comparison to race is a sin.See, I can do that, too.

quote:

---

WHICH DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE SINNER

---

And yet, that is precisely what you are demanding Christians do.

quote:

---

BUT WE ALSO AREN"T TO TREAT THE SIN AS A MERE SEXUAL VARIATION

---

Faith, nobody is forcing you to have the hottest, steamiest sex of your life with another woman the way you really wish you could, are they? Because that would be wrong. If you don't want to have sex with another woman, then don't.But for you to treat those who do any differently is against the law.

quote:

---

WHICH IS WHAT LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE ASKS OF US.

---

See, you just said that you aren't to discriminate against people and here you are, demanding to discriminate against them.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

which is hard to explain occurring in a person who is clearly physically designed for normal heterosexuality

---

Gay people don't seem to have any trouble having sex. You can go online and see any number of educational videos demonstrating it. After all, there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't also do...in fact, more often since there are so many more straight people in the world.Clearly, they are physically designed for normal homosexuality.

Faith avoids the question again:

quote:

---

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?

---

Your lack of a straight answer to a simple question.How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

This is about the baker's CONSCIENCE

---

I know. So answer the question. What is the "conscience" involved in a piece of plastic? There's nothing the baker did differently in creating the birthday cake. The same conscience is used. So why is it OK to deny one cake but not the identical cake?

quote:

---

and changing part of a cake to make it into a wedding cake for a gay wedding may be a problem for his conscience

---

But why? It's the same cake made in the same way.Seventh time, Faith:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

which would be the case where he/she has to be personally involved in anything that they know will be part of a gay wedding.

---

Which is precisely the same thing as any other cake. The baker is "personally involved." So for the eighth time:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

You can't determine this, the baker does.

---

That's why I'm asking what it is. Because I used to be a cake decorator, Faith. I know precisely what it means to make a cake for weddings and birthdays and any other occasion you care to name. You care about all of them. Your conscience is involved in all of them.So what's the difference? For the ninth time:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.

quote:

---

I'm trying to define the situations where it is most clearly a problem for a Christian's conscience.

---

But you're not explaining why there's a difference. A cake is a cake is a cake. For the tenth time:How does this cake: Suddenly become something the baker is "personally engaged in doing" by replacing the "50" with a wedding topper? What is it about that "50" that removes the baker from the baked good?You keep intimating that you think there's something different about a wedding cake, but you keep refusing to give any indication as to what it is.All you're doing is avoiding the question. Get on it.

Faith writes:

quote:

---

As I think about it, the main thing would probably be KNOWING THAT THE CAKE WAS FOR A GAY WEDDING.

---

So? You're not part of the wedding. You aren't the ones getting married and you aren't the one performing the ceremony. We're back to yet another question you've steadfastly refused to answer:How does one "validate" a marriage?You're selling food. Should a grocer be allowed to deny selling a gay person food if they know that the person is going to be using it to cook an anniversary dinner? Wouldn't that be "validating" the marriage? Should a postal worker be allowed to refuse to deliver a wedding invitation to a gay wedding? Or an anniversary card?Remember, Faith, we went through all this in my very first response to you in this thread. So here we are, nearly 300 posts later, and you're still refusing to answer the simple questions put forward to you:How does one "validate" a marriage? The cake isn't the marriage. The cake is just some food being bought to serve the guests.

quote:

---

The more personal the involvement the greater the problem

---

All cakes have personal involvement. Why is one cake allowed but not the identical cake?

quote:

---

I think I need to add that some degree of personal involvmenet or personal responsibility is part of it.

---

You are not personally involved or have any personal responsibility to the wedding if you are not the ones getting married or the one performing the ceremony. Everything else is just window dressing. We get it that you don't like the idea that someone is going to be using something you sold in a way you don't like, but you don't get to deny them if you are open to the public. If you want to limit your customer's use, you need to be a private contractor.I notice you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge that, Faith. Why is that? Do you have a problem with private contractors?

Faith avoids the question:

quote:

---

Message 382

---

Message 384

PaulK responds to me:

quote:

---

The only viable alternative is to stop talking and have you accuse me of running away.

---

You were running away already. By avoiding your own argument, you run away.

quote:

---

Outright lying is hardly productive.

---

So why do you do it?Or are you suggesting that when I quoted you directly and provided links back to the original posts so that people could see what you wrote to ensure that I was quoting you accurately, it was all made up? You didn't write what you were quoted as having written? That the links were not to the posts where you were quoted?You keep using that word, "lying." I do not think it means what you think it means.

quote:

---

Except of course that you did not provide the context in that case.

---

Except, of course, I did. That's why I included the link back to the original post so that it could be checked.I don't think you understand what the word "context" means, either.See, pointing out your exact words and providing the links back to them is not "missing the context" or "misinterpreting your words" no matter how much you stamp your little foot. So it would seem that even when you run away from your argument, you will continue to brazenly lie even when it is obvious for everyone to see.It is like arguing against Faith. See, I can sling the insults, too.

It is hard to respond to such stupid arguments.Faith responds to me:

quote:

---

I put up a post showing that wedding cakes are usually very comp0licated affairs

---

And I put up a post showing that birthday cakes are also very complicated affairs.And also pointed out that one of the pictures you put up as a "wedding" cake was actually a birthday cake.You argued that selling a birthday cake to a gay person wouldn't be a problem but that selling a wedding cake would be because of the complexity of making the cake...that somehow a birthday cake was a simple thing that didn't require any real effort on the part of the baker while a wedding cake required something more.But that is factually incorrect. Remember, Faith: I used to decorate cakes. I know exactly what is involved.There is no difference between a birthday cake and a wedding cake.

quote:

---

because people were referring to them as if they were just ordinary cakes like one might make in your own kitchen.

---

They are. You can make a wedding cake as fancy as any you have seen in your own kitchen. That's how a large number of bakers do it: They are contractors working out of their own kitchen. You've heard of Martha Stewart, yes? She's pretty famous for her lifestyle company. She got started doing catering, but her schtick was that she made it look like you did the cooking yourself. The company was called "The Uncatered Affair." What they would do is come to your house and collect your serving dishes. She would cook the food in her own kitchen, put it on your dishes, and bring it to you to serve to your guests.It was nothing you couldn't do for yourself...if only you had the time and skill to do it. Yeah, there is such a thing as industrial cooking equipment, but it's simply for volume and speed. There's nothing in an industrial kitchen that is beyond what you can do in your own home.A wedding cake is just an ordinary cake like one you might make in your own kitchen if only you knew how.

quote:

---

This was to demonstrate that a custom wedding cake can involve a lot of time and skill on the baker's part.

---

Just like a birthday cake. The fact that you are content with an 8" round, two-layer cake with hand-spread frosting doesn't mean everybody else is. The fact that many people decide to have a multi-tier cake with fancy decoration for a wedding doesn't mean everybody else does.A cake is a cake is a cake.

quote:

---

So you come along objecting on such grounds as that wedding cakes can indeed be made in someone's kitchen. Oy.

---

Yep. Your argument is predicated on the claim that there is something special about a wedding cake that makes it different from a birthday cake. Thus, if it can be shown that no, there is nothing special bout a wedding cake that makes it different from a birthday cake, then your argument fails.And, sure enough, there is nothing special about a wedding cake. You can make a cake as complicated as you might desire in your own kitchen. The only limiting factor is your knowledge of how to do it.Do you know how to roll out fondant? It's not hard but if you've never done it before, you'll need to be shown how. Do you know how to pipe a rose on a nail? Do you even know that you need a nail? Or do you? Do you really need something special to do it?

quote:

---

Or that they CAN be found on a supermarket shelf or in the display case.

---

Of course. A cake is a cake is a cake. The only limiting factor is what you're willing to put up with. After all, if there's only going to be 10 of you at the reception, what on earth do you need a four-tier monstrosity for? If you're saving your money, why spend hundreds of dollars on a cake?If your argument is that there is something about a wedding cake that no other cake can equal, that no wedding ever has a cake that is "lesser" than, then any evidence that points to the contrary disproves your assertion. And, indeed, that is precisely the case. There is nothing about a wedding cake that isn't matched by any other type of cake. And weddings don't require the fanciest of cakes.So we are left wondering why you claim that a birthday cake isn't a problem but a wedding cake is.

quote:

---

Well I've never seen them treated so cavalierly but if they are then they don't engage the baker's conscience

---

Well, here's a birthday cake: Why would replacing the "50" at the top with a wedding topper "engage the baker's conscience" such that a baker has the right to refuse to sell to someone? And if you were told that the "50" meant a wedding anniversary rather than a birthday, would that suddenly make it problematic?

quote:

---

they can just be taken off the shelf to the checkstand without any to-do about what they are for.

---

That's how many cakes are sold, yes. Why does that matter?

quote:

---

And you go on about how birthday cakes can be just as elaborate as wedding cakes, which is utterly irrelevant

---

You just said: That's the exact same situation as a birthday cake. You just argued that a wedding cake is different from a birthday cake because it "involves a lot of time and skill on the baker's part." So how does that mean a baker can refuse to sell a wedding cake but not a birthday cake when a birthday cake is the same?A cake is a cake is a cake.

quote:

---

since birthdays aren't a problem for the baker's conscience and I already said gays can have elaborate birthday caies without a problem.

---

Precisely. Thus, my repeated question which you have yet to answer:Here's a birthday cake: Why would replacing the "50" at the top with a wedding topper "engage the baker's conscience" such that a baker has the right to refuse to sell to someone? And if you were told that the "50" meant a wedding anniversary rather than a birthday, would that suddenly make it problematic?So what's the deal?

quote:

---

You also brought up how easy it could be to change a birthday cake into a wedding cake by substituting a small ornament, failing to grasp the most minimal point that this is about the baker's conscience.

---

Incorrect. I directly asked you what is it about the ornament that suddenly "engages the baker's conscience." It's the identical cake. What is it about the piece of plastic on top that "engages the baker's conscience"?

quote:

---

As I thought about it I realized that such a minor change COULD be a problem for a Christian's conscience because the problem is about doing anything that supports a gay wedding.

---

But why? What is it about that piece of plastic that makes it a problem? It's the same cake.

quote:

---

It isn't about the cake

---

Then why did you make all that fuss about the complexity of the cake? Why go on and on about whether or not the cake was pre-made or custom?

quote:

---

it's about the baker's conscience which is engaged by his sense of personal involvement in it and by knowing the cake is for a gay wedding.

---

And you aren't being hired for your conscience. You are being hired for your cake.Is a grocer allowed to deny selling food to a gay person if they know that it's going to be used for an anniversary dinner? Can they deny selling it to a caterer if they know the caterer is going to use the food for the reception of a gay wedding?

quote:

---

I still think that's a pretty good way of understanding the principle here.

---

But you haven't explained why. It all comes back to the question you refuse to answer:How does one "validate" a marriage? After all, you're not the one getting married nor are you the officiant performing the ceremony. You're just a salesman being asked to do your job just as you would for any other customer. If you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up. If you want to pick and choose your clients, then you need to establish your business as a private contractor, not as a public accommodation.Back to the race, question, Faith: Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race? If an interracial couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says the races shouldn't mix and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?If that's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?Or what about religion? Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of religion? If a Jewish couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says Jews killed Jesus and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?If that's a bogus argument when applied to religion, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

I forget what all else you keep trying to make into an argument. It's all irrelevant.

---

It's a simple question. The same one I've been asking since the beginning:How does one "validate" a marriage?

quote:

---

All you are doing by now is harassing me with your irrelevant arguments.

---

I don't think you understand what the word "harass" means. When you post in a public form that invites response, you aren't being "harassed" by having people respond to you.How does one "validate" a marriage, Faith?