Cake shop faces legal action for refusing to make anti LGBT cake

Status
Not open for further replies.
A little bit of playing fire with fire I see.

I understand they are trying to prove a point, and it’s a valid point, but this does not give them a right to damage a legitimate business owner probably has nothing to do with the radical activists.

A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, whether or not I agree with the reason. These sorts of actions just make us look spiteful.

Leave the poor bakers alone.
 
SWolf said:
A little bit of playing fire with fire I see.

I understand they are trying to prove a point, and it’s a valid point, but this does not give them a right to damage a legitimate business owner probably has nothing to do with the radical activists.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree; it looks like the customer is just “trying to prove a point”; I can’t think of any sensible reason why someone would put an anti-gay message on a cake.
 
I think that the baker should be allowed to refuse to make any cake for any reason.

Peace

Tim
 
I don’t even see this as the same thing as the gay marriage cakes. One is to celebrate a private function, the other is making a blanket condemnation of a group of people and seemingly serves no other purpose.

What does it mean to say that God hates homosexuality?

First off, God can’t hate. It’s metaphysically impossible for love and hate to coexist in God since He is simple and also, we know from revelation that He is Love. He simply can’t hate. I’m not looking at the use of the word ‘hate’ in an analogical way since I really don’t believe the offenders meant it that way since it’s too complicated a concept to put on a cake and expect people to understand what is really meant.

Secondly, does God hate the homosexuality that is a part of a celebate man? Have they considered this?

Conclusion, I would refuse to bake that cake since it’s intellectually insulting to me.
 
SWolf said:
A little bit of playing fire with fire I see.

I understand they are trying to prove a point, and it’s a valid point, but this does not give them a right to damage a legitimate business owner probably has nothing to do with the radical activists.

A business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, whether or not I agree with the reason. These sorts of actions just make us look spiteful.
Click to expand...
It does seem to be using the gay lobbies tactics. But as far as the innocence of the business owners in my city, which is in the South and tends to be conservative, most of the bakers I know of are the liberal types who promote homosexuality. By promote I mean have in some way publicly acknowledged their position and possibly financially supported pro homosexual groups. I would imagine such businesses are not rare and possibly very prevalent especially in other parts of the country. I would consider such people more than fair game as I’m sure they support using the law to prohibit Christians from exercising their religious liberty.

I do however agree that a business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, but that is not the law of the United States. It would be foolish to hold to that principle when it is dead and buried. People against the promotion of homosexuality aren’t going to bring that principle back by not using the same tactics of the gay lobby. The libertine element of society has always been more clever in getting their way. Of course I’m sure this tactic will not work as the law in our country is inconsistent.
 
exnihilo said:
I do however agree that a business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, but that is not the law of the United States.
Click to expand...
Really? You feel any business should be able to refuse service for any reason, even race or religion?

I think you are in a minority there.
 
DrTaffy said:
Really? You feel any business should be able to refuse service for any reason, even race or religion?

I think you are in a minority there.
Click to expand...
I also agree that any *business should be able to refuse service for *any *reason, even race or religion.

*I would exclude emergency services.

Peace

Tim
 
DrTaffy said:
Really? You feel any business should be able to refuse service for any reason, even race or religion?

I think you are in a minority there.
Click to expand...
Yes I absolutely believe you should be able to refuse service for race, religion, gender or any reason. Requiring one man to serve another is typically called slavery. My very point was that this principle that you are required to serve people is enshrined in our law. And most people think that is a good thing. They have no basis to complain then when that principle is applied to homosexuality. The question is not whether you can compel a man to serve another. The question is under what circumstances. Since our society now believes homosexuality is normal and good it was just a matter of time before that principle was extended to this condition.

Whether one ought to use some of the prohibited reasons for not serving someone is another issue. I just don’t think it is the place of the law to criminalize those reasons. I think the law inserting itself into society in such a way is very dangerous, as proven by it now applying to those who oppose same sex marriage.
 
exnihilo said:
Yes I absolutely believe you should be able to refuse service for race, religion, gender or any reason. Requiring one man to serve another is typically called slavery. My very point was that this principle that you are required to serve people is enshrined in our law. And most people think that is a good thing. They have no basis to complain then when that principle is applied to homosexuality. The question is not whether you can compel a man to serve another. The question is under what circumstances. Since our society now believes homosexuality is normal and good it was just a matter of time before that principle was extended to this condition.

Whether one ought to use some of the prohibited reasons for not serving someone is another issue. I just don’t think it is the place of the law to criminalize those reasons. I think the law inserting itself into society in such a way is very dangerous, as proven by it now applying to those who oppose same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
I think Christians in Syria would disagree. I think they very much appreciated, especially now, that the government compelled the majority Muslim groups to conduct commerce with them.

If Christians were a minority group and there was a history of this country allowing our enslavement, oppression, classification as 1/3 human, not allowed to vote, and we had to use separate facilities, then you would have no problem with the government saying no more.
 
Jon_S said:
If Christians were a minority group and there was a history of this country allowing our enslavement, oppression, classification as 1/3 human, not allowed to vote, and we had to use separate facilities, then you would have no problem with the government saying no more.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is, the government instituted a lot of those policies.
 
Jon_S said:
I think Christians in Syria would disagree. I think they very much appreciated, especially now, that the government compelled the majority Muslim groups to conduct commerce with them.

If Christians were a minority group and there was a history of this country allowing our enslavement, oppression, classification as 1/3 human, not allowed to vote, and we had to use separate facilities, then you would have no problem with the government saying no more.
Click to expand...
There are two issues you bring up. One is government imposed segregation or racial laws. The other is the freedom of private business or individuals. It is one thing for the government to end forced segregation or racial laws. It is another for the state to impose upon individuals.

And I should point out that racial laws essentially still exist even in America. For instance the US government maintains that constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. So it isn’t the case that our legal system at this very moment recognizes no distinction in person.

My opinion would not change regardless of a different history or condition, and I hope no man’s would because that indicates an opinion based not on principles but on relative conditions. I simply do not think the state should force people to serve others. Again the irony is that forcing people to serve others is normally called slavery.
 
I agree that a business has a right to deny service.

To me this was an anti-christian point the customer wanted to make.
A Bible shaped cake with anti LGBT writing.
 
SWolf said:
Funny thing is, the government instituted a lot of those policies.
Click to expand...
Some, but slavery existed from the beginning here before the country was founded. Long before. The rest was a symptom of that…really attempts to regulate the evil of slavery and deal with its affects.
 
exnihilo said:
There are two issues you bring up. One is government imposed segregation or racial laws. The other is the freedom of private business or individuals. It is one thing for the government to end forced segregation or racial laws. It is another for the state to impose upon individuals.

And I should point out that racial laws essentially still exist even in America. For instance the US government maintains that constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. So it isn’t the case that our legal system at this very moment recognizes no distinction in person.

My opinion would not change regardless of a different history or condition, and I hope no man’s would because that indicates an opinion based not on principles but on relative conditions. I simply do not think the state should force people to serve others. Again the irony is that forcing people to serve others is normally called slavery.
Click to expand...
Good to know, your consistent and if it became in favor for the majority to deny service to Christians in the US you would be A ok with it.

If you couldn’t shop at the grocery store or use a private till bridge that was between you and church. It would be fine.

It would be just because no one should be forced to serve another.
 
7_Sorrows said:
To me this was an anti-christian point the customer wanted to make.
A Bible shaped cake with anti LGBT writing.
Click to expand...
Good point.
Jon_S said:
Good to know, your consistent and if it became in favor for the majority to deny service to Christians in the US you would be A ok with it.

If you couldn’t shop at the grocery store or use a private till bridge that was between you and church. It would be fine.

It would be just because no one should be forced to serve another.
Click to expand...
If we get to the point where the US is so un-Christian that most people do not want to serve Christians we have worse problems than not being served. It seems to me even during legal segregation Blacks were typically served or at least not universally refused service. Christianity grew under persecution. It may be forced to again but we aren’t there yet. Right now we have a government that will use its coercive power to force you to advocate for same sex marriage. I see no reason to support that power.
 
exnihilo said:
Good point.

If we get to the point where the US is so un-Christian that most people do not want to serve Christians we have worse problems than not being served. It seems to me even during legal segregation Blacks were typically served or at least not universally refused service. Christianity grew under persecution. It may be forced to again but we aren’t there yet. Right now we have a government that will use its coercive power to force you to advocate for same sex marriage. I see no reason to support that power.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it individuals solemn rite to refuse service?

If the majority of individuals thought refusing Christians was their rite, you should applaud them based on your argument.
 
captainrick said:
I also agree - where privately owned business is concerned, government and the law should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
So short sighted…Spoken like someone who has never been refused service by a privately owned business.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top