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

[Guest Thallasa]

26 minutes ago, Flowerwater said:

I noticed you ignored the public accommodations information. That's OK. 

When this baker loses what then? 

By your standard of belief, the KKK members who own businesses in Alabama and Kentucky and Georgia or anywhere at all, could refuse to serve a black person, a Hispanic person, certainly a gay person, a mixed race couple, by invoking their religious conviction.

Do know also that if it did pass muster with the supreme court that Muslims could discriminate against non-Muslims. That was tried in Minneapolis by the cabbies who were Muslim and serving the local airport. They refused to pick up passengers that violated their religious beliefs in appearance. The cabbies lost. 

See, you're arguing from the right to discriminate as a Christian. What you're not seeing is that if a decision was handed down that religious conviction permitted discrimination by the religious, every single religious person could discriminate at will. Atheists are a protected religious class now too. 

This isn't a Christian privilege thing. This would be a national chaos thing. Being that the religious and the non-religious but with religious protection could go at one another by refusing to provide the public service they're in business to provide everyone else but those they decide don't deserve to be served because it offends the religious conviction of the server. 

What you are talking about is the colour of a person's skin ,and that is rightly not allowed ,but same sex relations are in total violation to God's creation ,the very foundation of humanity in fact  ..There is in reality no such thing as same sex marriage  as marriage was created specifically for the the relationship

between a man and a woman ,not only as a basis for the continuation of the species ,but as a positive living life force , positive / negative making  positive vibrations through out the universe .

When a Chrstian is forced to comply with what offends so evidently against God's creation laws ,then it is not bigotry , but common sense ,the kind that Jesus so often taught . Not all that He taught was only supernatural ,but often clear as day , to those who are not blinded by their carnality . 

[Flowerwater]

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

You still have not made a case for bigotry.  If anything your arguments display an atrocious amount of religious bigotry.

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. 

Quote

And not making a gay wedding cake for a gay ceremony that violates his faith is not a breach.   He is still serving gay people and doesn't refuse them service in his store.

Either because he didn't know they were gay. Or, because he's a hypocrite and likes to make money.   Is homosexuality a sin only if the gay's are getting married? Or is homosexuality , a man laying with a man as he would a woman, and a woman laying with a woman as she would a man, an abomination to God? Does God stipulate it is only an abomination if they're getting married? Otherwise it is not? 
Or does God's word in the new testament state the sexually immoral will not enter Heaven? That would include a vast number of sinners besides gays of course. 

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

 

 

Quote

Yes, and he has not done that.   He serves all kinds of people whose lifestyles he objects to, on a regular basis.

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.

Quote

He is not being hypocrite and you clearly don't understand what it means to be hypocrite.

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

Quote

Divorce is not a sin.  God has made provision for divorce in Scripture.

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. 

 

[Guest Thallasa]

On ‎30‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 4:41 AM, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Christians live their faith and live with their faith. However, this bakers religious moral objection wasn't demonstrated with consistency. He served homosexuals who were still an abomination to God due to their immoral sin, every day according to some. He had no problem at all making anything a homosexual customer wanted until they wanted a wedding cake. 

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

Oh dear !!!!!!!

[Flowerwater]

18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Wrong again.   The fact that he willingly serves gays, whether he knows they are gay or not defeats your silly, inane bigotry argument.   If A satanist came in and wanted a satanic wedding cake for a satanist wedding, he would likely refuse them, as well.   He might serve them in other ways, but not to participate indirectly in their ceremony. 

Since this is limited only to ceremony, and since most of the gay community doesn't care if he makes a gay wedding cake or not, this is not a case of bigotry.   The couple that came to his store were radical LGBT activists and the radical LGBT community wants more than tolerance.  They want to force everyone, especially Christians to be forced to accommodate their lifestyle or face prosecution and punitive measures.   That is where the bigotry and discrimination is taking place.

That absurd abuse of scripture, and reason, tells me you're desperate to make a case that is unwinable. 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. That you insist his actions are not bigotry or discrimination is evidence you renounce truth in those terms. That you ignored the accommodation law link shows you ignore the law and its terms. 

He's going to lose before the supreme court. And just so you know, there isn't a man alive, a court in existence on earth, that will ever remove God from his sovereignty or throne. That prior observation was telling but I wanted to make that observation before stopping further discussion with you on this. 
When you resort to the tactics you've employed to avoid reason, you've lost your position. What this baker is asking for is obscene. People fought and died to insure this man's ideal America was overturned. We shall never go back. 

[simplejeff]

Not at all.  Just as when pagan meat (dedicated to an idol) is served,

it may be eaten if it is not known to have been dedicated to a false god,

but if the knowledge is disclosed that it was offered to a false god (Islam or other),

then it is to be refused,  even if just for conscience sake.

So also a wedding cake dedicated to perversion should be refused for conscience sake,

and may be refused for other reasons also as well.

And Jews were permitted to sell pigs to heathen gentiles,

but if an ungodly request with the pig is made, it would be rightly refused

So anything abominable like homos or any perversion at all, ungodly, unrighteous,

ought not to be entertained to be practiced.

On 6/29/2017 at 9:41 PM, Anonymous Aristotle said:

He served homosexuals who were still an abomination to God due to their immoral sin, every day according to some. He had no problem at all making anything a homosexual customer wanted until they wanted a wedding cake. 

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

.

 

[Guest Thallasa]

3 minutes 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. 

Either because he didn't know they were gay. Or, because he's a hypocrite and likes to make money.   Is homosexuality a sin only if the gay's are getting married? Or is homosexuality , a man laying with a man as he would a woman, and a woman laying with a woman as she would a man, an abomination to God? Does God stipulate it is only an abomination if they're getting married? Otherwise it is not? 
Or does God's word in the new testament state the sexually immoral will not enter Heaven? That would include a vast number of sinners besides gays of course. 

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

 

 

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.

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

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. 

 

Well it certainly becomes the sin that cannot be forgiven, the sin against the Holy Spirit , by making lawful , what can never be lawful ,to a Holy God . It is open , with pride not shame , and it is being forced on the world as a good , which it can never, ever be .  Other sins are not paraded ,and such as you mention, fits within the  basic law of God for the human person ,if not strictly in the perfect manner which God would like .

 

[Guest Thallasa]

12 minutes ago, Flowerwater said:

That absurd abuse of scripture, and reason, tells me you're desperate to make a case that is unwinable. 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. That you insist his actions are not bigotry or discrimination is evidence you renounce truth in those terms. That you ignored the accommodation law link shows you ignore the law and its terms. 

He's going to lose before the supreme court. And just so you know, there isn't a man alive, a court in existence on earth, that will ever remove God from his sovereignty or throne. That prior observation was telling but I wanted to make that observation before stopping further discussion with you on this. 
When you resort to the tactics you've employed to avoid reason, you've lost your position. What this baker is asking for is obscene. People fought and died to insure this man's ideal America was overturned. We shall never go back. 

I thought for a minute, I had wandered into a pagan , atheist website .

[Flowerwater]

19 minutes ago, Thallasa said:

What you are talking about is the colour of a person's skin ,and that is rightly not allowed ,but same sex relations are in total violation to God's creation ,the very foundation of humanity in fact  ..There is in reality no such thing as same sex marriage  as marriage was created specifically for the the relationship

between a man and a woman ,not only as a basis for the continuation of the species ,but as a positive living life force , positive / negative making  positive vibrations through out the universe .

When a Chrstian is forced to comply with what offends so evidently against God's creation laws ,then it is not bigotry , but common sense ,the kind that Jesus so often taught . Not all that He taught was only supernatural ,but often clear as day , to those who are not blinded by their carnality . 

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. 

 

 

 

[Guest Thallasa]

1 hour ago, Flowerwater said:

He doesn't have a constitutional right to be a bigot in the name of Christ. He doesn't have a constitutional right to refuse service because he disapproves of someone's lifestyle. That's not what the constitution allows. 

Now though he wants the legal right to do all that. And his short sighted bigotry, and it is delusional on his part to think this is first amendment and not selective discrimination, thinks if he wins this it is a victory for all Christians opposed to gay marriage. No, it's chaos busting lose if this passes in the supreme court. 

It won't pass. God forbid it does pass. Because I don't want someone to refuse to sell me a car because they think Christians are hell bound infidels. I don't want an atheist to refuse to refuse to be a handyman in my house repairs when they see the God Bless You plaque on my front door. I don't want to be discriminated against because someone's personal beliefs about my personal self gives them a right to do that. 

This garbage went out with the separate but equal laws in the old south. Black and white water fountains and all that. No Christian can support this in good conscience and claim Jesus, who supped with sinners, and sought out the untouchables in his community. Even his disciples chastised him for that and Jesus set them straight. How can a Christian baker invoke Jesus name and do exactly what he didn't do when he walked the earth? 

Bake a cake! That's his job! He's not supporting gay marriage baking a cake. He's supporting his family as a baker, because he bakes cakes!

He is not BAKING  cakes he would be  making a declaration of support for SSM .

You have barely come onto this site, and you are telling people what you think they should be, to be a Christian . Modesty , patience ,learning before  assuming  ?

We are not talking remember, about being homosexual ,but about the mirage of SSM., which is not the same . If Jesus mixed with prostitutes etc , it was to heal them , and for that they had to repent ,but for some  that is bigoted ,and very out of date .

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Flowerwater said:

No. 
The poor understanding started when someone argued a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay customer because a gay customer asks for a gay wedding cake isn't discrimination but religious freedom. 

God shows no partiality. Jesus taught that by example. 

 

HUH? Gods does not agree with unrighteousness!! . Yes, God is partial . God loves his children who walk in righteousness!  . God HATES sin. Gods wrath is upon the wicked! A gay wedding cake is the REPRESENTATION of a gay unity. Do you understand that?

Jesus taught us to defend the faith. That is what Jesus taught us to do.

Playing any part in a gay unity is not christian but it is agreeing with iniquity in Gods eyes. 

Ephesians 5:11…10Test and prove what pleases the Lord. 11Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.…