Masterpiece Cakeshop Is Fighting For The First Amendment, Not Against Gay Marriage

[Running Gator]

4 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I agree with you on the second part of your statement.

I think it's a stretch though to say they're misguided and wrong.  

For my part, I think this is one of those specific issues for which one could come down on either side.

A Christian business owner could look at it this way:  I'm being hired to provide goods.  I'm not participating IN the ceremony.  Given that, he could conclude that it is NOT going against his beliefs. His conscience is clear.

On the other hand, another Christian may conclude that even providing the goods (cake) for the ceremony is in fact his participating in it.  Therefore he cannot do so.

When God created us, he did not create automatons who always look and act exactly alike.  As we all know, Christians can look at scripture verses and come to different conclusions.  

I would hesitate, however, to call someone 'misguided' or 'wrong' simply because they've come to a different conclusion than I have (and given the fact there is no specific Scripture verse saying "thou shalt not bake a cake for a homosexual wedding ceremony")  We do have some flexibility here, I think.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

 

 

You are right, that was a bit harsh.  I do not agree with them, but as you said we all have free will.

[Running Gator]

3 hours ago, Flowerwater said:

There seems to be a whole bunch of flip flop in your position here and in other posts on this topic. 

Not in the least.   My position is consistent.  I do not agree with the baker, but he should have every right to make that decision.  It is really that simple.

Quote

Meanwhile, there are certain inalienable rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Equality Before the Law  The right to be treated equally before the law, regardless of social status. https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history

Yes, the law (aka the government) must treat everyone equally.   As I said, the Constitution puts limits on the government, which is why this applies to the government and not to private individuals. 

Quote

And this can help you too. The Public Accommodations laws both state and federal. http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/public-accommodations.html 

This is twisted liberal logic that removes the freedom of the individual.   A private individual should be allowed to run their business/club/group/etc any way that they see fit.  If they wish to ban all white women under 5'2", they should be allowed to.   Then those of us in the market can make our choice on whether we wish to support such discrimination and either walk away or not.  

Quote

This baker is going to lose before the supreme court. Thank God.

I am not so sure about that, but time will tell.

[Anonymous Aristotle]

It is heartbreaking to see how far some here go in order to personally attack someone they disagree with.Implying they are so called "christian", implying they are demons, all to make a point of what? Holiness? 
 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Flowerwater said:

Then God's word is in error? 

Peter didn't mean what he said in Acts 10:34?

Paul didn't know what he was talking about in his letter to the Romans? Chapter 2 , verse 11?

No. Gods word is never in error but the one interpreting Gods words is many times wrong  

Acts 10:34 really has nothing to do with this situation. Here is commentary on that. This should close this discussion on that scripture. I hope you are able to see your use of scripture is way out of context.

Peter here says that he had learned the error of this doctrine, and that a man is not to be accepted because he is a Jew, nor to be excluded because he is a Gentile. The barrier is broken down; the offer is made to all; God will save all on the same principle; not by external privileges or rank, but according to their character.

 

Next we have Romans 2:11. It says the same thing towards Gods favoritism  not existing towards jews or gentiles. 

"11. for there is no respect of persons] “For” points to the last words of Romans 2:10, and shews that though St Paul has just emphasized the special privilege of the Jew, (“to the Jew first,”) as balanced with his special accountability, yet his main emphasis of thought is on the position of the Gentiles as side by side with the Jews. See Acts 10:34-35, where St Peter at length admits the equal acceptability of pious Jews and pious Gentiles before God.

For - This particle is used here to confirm what is said before, particularly that this punishment should be experienced by the Jew as well as the Gentile. For God would deal with both on the principles of justice.

Respect of persons - The word thus rendered means "partiality," in pronouncing judgment, in favoring one party or individual more than another, not because his cause is more just, but on account of something personal - on account of his wealth, or rank, or function, or influence, or by personal friendship, or by the fear of him. It has special reference to a judge who pronounces judgment between parties at law. The exercise of such partiality was strictly and often forbidden to the Jewish magistrates; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; Proverbs 24:23; James 2:1, James 2:3,James 2:9. In his capacity as a Judge, it is applied often to God. It means that he will not be influenced in awarding the retributions of eternity, in actually pronouncing and executing sentence, by any partiality, or by regard to the wealth, function, rank, or appearance of people. He will judge righteous judgment; he will judge people as they ought to be judged; according to their character and deserts; and not contrary to their character, or by partiality.

 

 

Now let me share with you the valid scriptures to apply to this life circumstance  of baking a cake as a "representation" an abomination against God the Sovereign LORD.  This is not an exhaustive list but it is a good start for your consideration of who a follower of Christ is as a slave to his master!

 

 Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the wicked?Who will take a stand for me against evildoers?

 Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Jude 1:3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

 

Matthew 5:11-12 “You are blessed when they insult and persecute you and falsely say every kind of evil against you because of Me. Be glad and rejoice, because your reward is great in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

13. 1 Peter 4:14 If you are ridiculed for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. None of you, however, should suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or a meddler. But if anyone suffers as a “Christian,” he should not be ashamed but should glorify God in having that name.

 Romans 12:222Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to discern what is the good, pleasing, andperfect will 

Ephesians 5:17
Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

1John 2:1515Do not lovethe world or anything in the world. If anyoneloves the world, the love of the Father is not inhim. 16For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not from the Father but from the world.…

James 4:4
You adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God.

 

1 Thessalonians 5:22

²² Abstain from all appearance of evil.

 

Blessings  

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Flowerwater said:

Excellent point.  What this baker is asking for violates the protection in the establishment clause and the separation clause. 

I wonder though being I am new, is it typical that members here don't discuss a topic without calling names, or implying insult to those not in accord with their point of view? 

 

"Free exercise of religion" is exactly what this baker is doing by NOT baking a cake that REPRESENTS SIN against God. 

Which btw; I didnt call you a name nor did I imply insult to you. 

The reason I posted this is because I am full aware of many people that have wrong understanding about the separation of church and state. I have witnessed countless people twist the first amendment out of ignorance especially younger generations that are liberals.  

Proverbs 19:11

Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.

As far as this particular  discussion,I think it is important for you to understand why defending the faith is of vital importance. Many are falling away or compromising . Christians are a peculiar people and what we do will not agree with the world. We MUST stand FIRM  as a witness to the world that narrow is the way and broad is the path to death.

Proverbs 27:5-6

Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.

Psalm 119:165 

Great peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble.

 

Blessings  

[4LdKHVCzRDj2]

On 6/29/2017 at 11:41 PM, Anonymous Aristotle said:

It is discrimination when he serves homosexuals but refuses to serve them a wedding cake.

Remembering they are probably not just wanting a common cake, but a cake which glorifies their sinful practice.

What is interesting about this is that if the bakers refused to make cakes with themes for kids, halloween, marijuana, promoting violence, etc. no one would care and just search for another people that would do it for them (is their competitors crying?).

It seems to be a case of persecution.

"Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution." - 2 Timothy 3:12

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, 4LdKHVCzRDj2 said:

Remembering they are probably not just wanting a common cake, but a cake which glorifies their sinful practice.

What is interesting about this is that if the bakers refused to make cakes with themes for kids, halloween, marijuana, promoting violence, etc. no one would care and just search for another people that would do it for them (is their competitors crying?).

It seems to be a case of persecution.

"Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution." - 2 Timothy 3:12

Amen!!

 Matthew 10:22
You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Yowm said:

What I don't understand is why some 'christians' are quicker to defend ungodly laws (e.g. Gay marriage and abortion) than they are to defend the right of the Christian to stand by his God given (through the new birth and God's Word) conscience. It's like man's law takes precedence over God's Word.

I dont understand it either Yowm.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Flowerwater said:

And the appearance of sin and evil in gay couples is exactly the same offense as is invoked by the KKK member example when they invoke scripture to defend their bigotry and discrimination. Daniel 2:43. Deuteronomy 7. And other scriptures are upheld as the reason the KKK members segregate. And believe in segregation. 

Jesus said he came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 
He himself said in saying that that he was not here to save the gentiles. 

How far are Christians today in the grace of God willing to go to defend the indefensible? I know how far one went and it was really embarrassing for them. I know how far this baker is going and in so doing showing the shoulder that is not turned toward the ministry of Christ and his example. 

How far then ? 
If a gay couple came to your church, holding hands and walked down the aisle and took a seat, what then? What would happen? 

I'll put it simply so that it can be simply understood. Sin is sin. 

If someone freely enters into the world to do business with the worldly, and then claims their religious convictions precludes them from upholding the contract they swore to serve under when they signed that license to be in business , in commerce, with the state, they're violating their honor and oath to serve the terms of said contract. Knowing full well they were entering into a worldly business serving worldly people. Customers. 

When they violate anti-discrimination laws, when there are protected classes in America that includes gays, and they in doing that invoke religious conscience for one product they sell, against one particular customer they serve, that's discrimination. Pure and simple. 

If they were of religious conscience they would screen every customer they serve in order to uphold their religious conscience and to be in service to the Lord. They don't. They discriminate, and I saw someone paste the meaning of that word and that was ignored but it matters not because the meaning of discrimination stands in this case, against one identity of customer, for one reason alone. Using one reason for doing so. Religious conscience. Which they violated the moment they served that gay customer anything at all ever before they asked for a wedding cake. 

Just as they violated their religious conscious reasoning when they served any non-Christian, any divorcee remarrying. 

They entered into the worldly domain of commerce and public accommodation, licensing with the state. They have religious freedom in America, absolutely. They do not have the freedom to violate anti-discrimination laws because they're religious. Thinking he should be allowed to will make for chaos in America as every group invokes their right to refuse service for their religious conscience reason. 

The short sighted argument claims a KKK business owner refusing to sell flowers to a mixed race couple for their wedding doesn't see those verses I quoted. This pursuit by this baker were it to pass into law would allow that KKK member to send that couple on their way without flowers. Race is a protected class too. Gays are a protected class too. What this baker is asking is the protections be lifted. So the religious conscience can discriminate because of who a customer is. In the bakers argument it is, a gay sinner entering into a union that is not ordained by God.  
America is not a Christian theocracy. God's ordinance in the secular realm does not apply as secular law. It violates the separation clause to think it would be able to. 

This baker would better example the teachings of Christ if he comported himself better as an example of Christ's teachings. The love of the sinner, the love of the enemy. 
He could have cake boxes for wedding cakes ordered for a gay ceremony that have scripture imprinted about salvation, redemption, baptism, God's grace. He could have a tract he published to that end in the box. He could do any number of things to win souls to Christ. Rather than insist his won soul status has a right to judge others and send them away because they are one type of sinner. 

 

 

 

Your idea of love is fallacious.  Christians do not do as the world does! Love is not always a soft hug but it is also a strong rebuke against those against Christ.   And yes, he does have the right to judge sin against God and the sinner has absolutely no ground to judge him! 

1 Corinth 2: 14The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone’s judgment. 16“For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.…

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, Flowerwater said:

I see you're trying to turn the bakers religious bigotry toward me. That will fail. And for a number of reasons. But with the kind of illogic that is arguing for religious bigotry I don't expect to waste my time pointing it out.

No, I am not turning it toward you. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in your argument.  You have no problem with religious bigotry, which makes your argument void.

Quote

Either because he didn't know they were gay. Or, because he's a hypocrite and likes to make money.  

So since it is a fact that he willingly serves gay people who come to his bakery, it is because he doesn't know they're gay?  What you're doing is assuming and assigning certain values to him so that even if he is not a bigot and is not refusing service, he is still a bigot because you need him to be bigot in order to have something to knock down.

Your entire argument, it appears, hinges on you assigning the label of bigot, something you haven't really proven to be the case. 

How is making money the same as being a "hypocrite?"   That is irrational and proves you don't know what a hypocrite is.

 

Quote

If his religious conscience was actually pricked here he'd not serve those he knew were gay at all. But we've not heard he does that.

 

Yes, and that defeats your inane argument that he is a bigot.  If he were a bigot, he would not serve gays at all.    So basically, if he isn't a bigot, then he is religious views are essentially fraudulent in your eyes.  So he can't win.  Either he is bigot for not serving gays, or if he is serving them, he violating his faith.

Your argument also contains a rather ridiculous component in that he cannot be against the homosexual lifestyle unless he also hates homosexuals.   Your argument demands that he cannot hate the sin, but love the sinner.   Where you are concerned, you cannot make a moral distinction between opposing a lifestyle vs.  opposing the person engaged in it.   You cannot make that distinction because doing so, defeats entire line of reasoning and your attempt to label him a bigot.

He is opposed to a particular lifestyle, but does not hate the people living in it.   It violates his faith and he wants nothing to do with any aspect of that lifestyle, he doesn't want his life to intersect with it as far as any kind of participation, directly or indirectly, is concerned.    That does not translate into bigotry, because his opposition to their lifestyle doesn't mean that he will not serve them when they walk into his store.

 

Quote

We've heard he refuses to make a wedding cake for one protected class of persons solely because they are gay.

No we have not. That is a value that you are assigning the issue, and it is a false accusation.

Quote

And it is then that he exclusively invokes his religious conscience. Against gays getting married. 
That's bigotry. That's discrimination. And that is hypocrisy when he does that claiming it is religious conscience that moves him. 

No, it is not bigotry because he already serves them in every other context of his business. He is opposed to lending his services to a gay wedding.   That is not bigotry, particularly because he would not lend his services to anything else that violates his sincerely held, constitutionally protected religious views, either.   It is not bigotry because it is about his opposition to a lifestyle celebration, not an opposition to the people themselves.

Quote

Thank you for making my point that he has no standing in the matter of refusing service to one protected class simply because they are gay.

He isn't refusing them service because they are gay.    My point is that your baseline argument is really a false accusation.   He refuses to lend his services directly to a lifestyle event that violates his faith. 

Quote

That coming from someone who defends bigotry as something Christ would approve. 

But you haven't proven bigotry has occurred.   Simply because you assign that value to him, doesn't make it so.  And so far, nothing about the issue supports the claim at all.  If anything he has demonstrated the opposite of bigotry.
 

Quote

 

Yes, divorce is a sin. There are two reasons allowed for divorce. Adultery and marriage to an unbeliever. That's it. And there is still no provision for remarriage while the divorced spouse is alive. He's hypocrite if he makes wedding cakes for straight divorcees. 

 

 

 

No, divorce isn't a sin. If it were, God would not have made provisions and concessions for it.   And you really don't understand the theology behind marriage and divorce or you would have made such nonsensical claims about it.   But then you don't really understand hypocrisy or bigotry, either so I am not surprised at this kind of theological illiteracy.

Quote

That absurd abuse of scripture, and reason, tells me you're desperate to make a case that is unwinable.

That tells me that you have no real understanding about holiness and living a life separated from the world.

Quote

And that you've launched into personal name calling and repeatedly shows you have a very weak point behind your desperation to make an argument for inconsistency in this bakers behavior.

There is nothing inconsistent about opposing the lifestyle without opposing the people in it.   You can't make that distinction because such a distinction doesn't allow you to throw around the word, "bigot."   You can only call him a bigot if you ignore that distinction and treat any opposition to that lifestyle as hatred of the person in it. 

Quote

That you insist his actions are not bigotry or discrimination is evidence you renounce truth in those terms.

No, it shows that I am more honest about this, than you are.  Opposing a lifestyle that violates Scripture is not bigotry, but acknowledging that fact requires more honesty than you are able to face up to.
 

Quote

 

That you ignored the accommodation law link shows you ignore the law and its terms. 

 

 

 

I didn't ignore it.   I simply quoted the relevant portion to explain that your definition of equal treatment is fallacious.  Equal treatment under the law does not mean that the baker is required to violate his sincerely held religious views.  Religious freedom is not expendable.   It's not something you can toss out when you disagree with the religious views of the person holding them.   No one has the right to demand that anyone shelve his religious view or demand that he not be allowed to act on those beliefs.

Quote

When you resort to the tactics you've employed to avoid reason, you've lost your position.

I have employed no "tactics."   I simply have the courage to stand up to your intolerance and religious bigotry.