Not discrimination to refuse cake sale.

[nedboy7]

As New Testament Scholar Daniel Kirk has pointed out, Christians today would do well by the tradition of the apostles and our current witness in the world to recognize that theological abstractions aside, God has already clearly embraced LGBTQ+ people into full communion, and it is now the church’s responsibility to simply honor that reality and rejoice (Luke 15).

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/storiedtheology/2016/01/30/embracing-the-gentiles/

[sherpa]

19 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

As New Testament Scholar Daniel Kirk has pointed out, Christians today would do well by the tradition of the apostles and our current witness in the world to recognize that theological abstractions aside, God has already clearly embraced LGBTQ+ people into full communion, and it is now the church’s responsibility to simply honor that reality and rejoice (Luke 15).

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/storiedtheology/2016/01/30/embracing-the-gentiles/

 

You are referencing Luke 15 for some reason, which is a chapter about welcoming after repentance.

[nedboy7]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

You are referencing Luke 15 for some reason, which is a chapter about welcoming after repentance.

 

It's an interesting read. One I agree with.  I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people.  This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders.  And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple.  They are not participating in the wedding.  They are making a cake.  And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination.  Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it. 

[nedboy7]

Two features of the law make clear that Colorado’s law does not coerce artists to express a message with which they disagree.

First, no artist has to open a business to the public in the first place. Most writers, painters and other artists never do; they pick their subjects and leave it at that. The photographer Annie Leibovitz, for example, does not offer to take photographs of anyone who offers to pay her fee but chooses her subjects. She is perfectly free to photograph only white people or only Buddhists.

But if Ms. Leibovitz were to open a portrait photography business that offered to take portraits on a first-come, first-served basis to the public at large, as many corporate photography studios do, she could not turn away subjects just because they were Black or Christian. Her photographic work would be just as expressive. But the choice to benefit from the public marketplace comes with the legal obligation to equally serve members of the public. And requiring businesses that offer expressive services in the public marketplace to follow the same rules as all other businesses does not violate the First Amendment.

Second, even businesses open to the public are free to define the content of what they sell. A Christmas store can sell only Christmas items without running afoul of public accommodations laws. It need not stock Hanukkah candles or Kwanzaa cards. But it cannot put a sign on its doors saying, “We don’t serve Jews” or “No Blacks allowed.”

303 Creative argues that it is not turning away same-sex couples because they are gay, but because it objects to the message that making a wedding website for them would convey. The company has, however, asked the court to declare its right to refuse to make any website for a same-sex couple’s wedding, even if its content is identical to one it would design for a straight couple. According to this line of argument, the company could refuse a gay couple even a site that merely announced the time and location of the wedding and recommended places to stay.

Colorado’s law doesn’t dictate the content of what a business sells. 303 Creative is free to post on all the websites it designs, “The Bible condemns gay marriage.” And by the same token, it could refuse to design a site that says, “The Bible blesses gay marriage,” if it would not design that website for anyone. In that case, the decision would not be discrimination based on the customer’s identity, but a permissible decision to define the product it sells.

303 Creative has plenty of freedom to speak or not speak as it wishes. It need not serve the public and it need not design wedding websites featuring content it would not sell to anyone. But the First Amendment does not give it an exemption from laws requiring equal treatment of customers simply because its service is “expressive.”

Otherwise, interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contain some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group. The First Amendment protects the right to have and express bigoted views, but it doesn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.

[SoCal Deek]

I apologize…I had to step away to have a life. But I don’t believe I ever got an answer:

 

Should society force me to design the building? 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I apologize…I had to step away to have a life. But I don’t believe I ever got an answer:

 

Should society force me to design the building? 

I answered. 

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

I answered. 

Other than you. 🙄

[Chef Jim]

36 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Other than you. 🙄

Oh…..I thought that was directed at me. LOL. 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Oh…..I thought that was directed at me. LOL. 

Nope…you can go back to arguing with BillSy about how Trump caused, started, and ultimately lost the war in Afghanistan. Good luck with that. 

[K D]

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

 

It's an interesting read. One I agree with.  I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people.  This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders.  And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple.  They are not participating in the wedding.  They are making a cake.  And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination.  Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it. 

What if it was a cake for a Satan worship party? Would you still force them to bake the cake? Or is it a case by case basis? And who decides?

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

What if it was a cake for a Satan worship party? Would you still force them to bake the cake? Or is it a case by case basis? And who decides?

 

Only if it's Devil's Food.

 

You keep settin' up and I'll keep knockin' 'em down. 

[Westside]

48 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Oh…..I thought that was directed at me. LOL. 

It’s not all about you! 😁

[Chef Jim]

9 minutes ago, Westside said:

It’s not all about you! 😁

 

Then why am I here?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

It's an interesting read. One I agree with.  I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people.  This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders.  And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple.  They are not participating in the wedding.  They are making a cake.  And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination.  Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it. 

I’d bake the cake, been grateful for the opportunity to serve, and upsold the blueberry scones if possible.   But I’m not them.  

 

Perhaps before supporting oppressive, punitive action against the business owner, you should consider attempting to understand them—what they think, why they think it, and why their perspective is important to them.  Maybe you’ll gain a better understanding of them, and maybe through dialogue and shared respect, they’ll come to see your perspective.  Or maybe you’ll come to see theirs.  Or, maybe neither. 
 

After all, as you said “it’s a ***** cake.”.  
 

 

[nedboy7]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’d bake the cake, been grateful for the opportunity to serve, and upsold the blueberry scones if possible.   But I’m not them.  

 

Perhaps before supporting oppressive, punitive action against the business owner, you should consider attempting to understand them—what they think, why they think it, and why their perspective is important to them.  Maybe you’ll gain a better understanding of them, and maybe through dialogue and shared respect, they’ll come to see your perspective.  Or maybe you’ll come to see theirs.  Or, maybe neither. 
 

After all, as you said “it’s a ***** cake.”.  
 

 

 

It is not punitive action to demand people to respect laws concerning discrimination.  It is one of the fundamental requirements of having a civilized society imo.  I am like you.  I would never let a person's orientations effect how I serve them at my business.  I have had a few so called "tolerant non-racist" liberals that ask me how I can provide services to Trumpers.  I am really taken back by this question and I always tell them I take pride in serving everyone, especially people I do not agree with with or maybe find odd.  I have no problem with religion or sexual orientation.  I think this woman is an exception.  I do not know a single person of faith that would discriminate against a homosexual.

[nedboy7]

5 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

What if it was a cake for a Satan worship party? Would you still force them to bake the cake? Or is it a case by case basis? And who decides?

 

I don't know if Satan worshipers are recognized as a legitimate group?  It's a slippery slope, I agree.  But to have a working society you need laws that might sometimes be uncomfortable?  My thinking is if I open a business, I know the laws.  And while it would suck to serve someone you do not agree with, that is what you sign up for as long as they are respectful and law abiding.  Am I wrong on this? 

[K D]

2 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I don't know if Satan worshipers are recognized as a legitimate group?  It's a slippery slope, I agree.  But to have a working society you need laws that might sometimes be uncomfortable?  My thinking is if I open a business, I know the laws.  And while it would suck to serve someone you do not agree with, that is what you sign up for as long as they are respectful and law abiding.  Am I wrong on this? 

Yes there is a church of Satan, it's a real thing. As a Christian I couldn't imagine spending 4 hours working on a Satan cake. They want blood on it and horns and upside down cross. So I can't open a nice bakery to support my family because someone might come to me and force me to make a cake I can't morally stomach? There's nothing wrong with refusing to work on something you don't agree with. Plenty of other bakeries who would probably think it would be fun. I have a friend that does scary makeup for like Halloween and plays and stuff and she is into that kind of thing for example.

[SoCal Deek]

Shouldn’t this go both ways? Let’s say I go in a store and tell the clerk that I’m buying a Christmas gift for my wife. Then upon checkout I say thank you and Merry Christmas to the clerk…should society force her to say Merry Christmas back? Obviously not….and we don’t. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[Tiberius]

18 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I apologize…I had to step away to have a life. But I don’t believe I ever got an answer:

 

Should society force me to design the building? 

I answered! I said no 

[nedboy7]

12 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

Yes there is a church of Satan, it's a real thing. As a Christian I couldn't imagine spending 4 hours working on a Satan cake. They want blood on it and horns and upside down cross. So I can't open a nice bakery to support my family because someone might come to me and force me to make a cake I can't morally stomach? There's nothing wrong with refusing to work on something you don't agree with. Plenty of other bakeries who would probably think it would be fun. I have a friend that does scary makeup for like Halloween and plays and stuff and she is into that kind of thing for example.

 

I sense you are trying to make an argument to justify discrimination. 

You do not understand the case I think. 

You do not have the right to deny service to someone based on certain things.  But you do not have to put ***** blood on the cake. 

The woman can deny making a cake that offends her freedom of speech.  But she cant deny making a cake she would make for anyone else. 

For example she can deny to make a cake that has a giant penis on it.  But she cant deny making an ordinary cake just cause they are gay. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by nedboy7