Supreme court: Same sex cake

Serious and MATURE conversations about Christianity
User avatar
Kratos
Council Member
Council Member
Posts: 5630
Joined: May 19th, 2011, 7:50 pm
Steam Profile: joshfitz08
Location: Appleton, WI

Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by Kratos » December 5th, 2017, 12:35 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/ ... index.html

I can't recall if this has been discussed. I have to assume it has but I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this.

If you listen to the baker he claims that he is not discriminating against them as individuals. He says he would bake them any other cake or baked goods. He is claiming that he is not willing to provide a cake for that particular event.

The common argument FOR the baker is: "If a Nazi couple came into a Jewish bakery and asked for their wedding cake to have swastikas on it, should that baker be forced to bake the cake?"

The common argument for the couple is: "He is only denying service because we are gay. Being gay is a protected class and it is illegal to discriminate against us as individuals."

What say you?
word count: 151

User avatar
Ongurth
Council Advisor
Council Advisor
Posts: 2419
Joined: November 2nd, 2008, 8:26 am
Steam Profile: ongurth
Location: doing fun and exciting things, such as praying, writing, shooting, or Krav Maga
Contact:

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by Ongurth » December 5th, 2017, 1:46 pm

I don't usually talk politics, because people think of me as the Bible study leader, but I can't help myself on this one. :) Disclaimer: this is Ongurth's personal opinion - I am making no attempt to say this is the Bibically right way to view it.

____________

Let the market handle it. You should be able to do business with or not do business with anyone you choose. If I don't get to choose my clients, then it's not a business situation- it's a hostage situation.

"Well, Ongurth, what about the racism laws! You aren't allowed to deny service to anyone based on their race, so you shouldn't be allowed to deny service to anyone based on their sexuality. The racism laws eliminated segregation, so we need those same laws here."

Incorrect. Social pressure eliminated segregation. People coming together to decide that something was wrong eliminated segregation. If people stopped eating at a place that didn't serve minorities, the market would handle the problem. I think discriminating against people based on their race, religion, and sexuality is wrong, but I think it's also wrong to force someone to do commerce with someone else. I am against any sort of law that forces an exchange of goods. A business transaction at gunpoint isn't true commerce. I would prefer to err on the side of free markets, but that's the crazy libertarian talking in me.
word count: 243
Image

User avatar
shadowsbane
CC Member
CC Member
Posts: 6580
Joined: November 18th, 2008, 1:12 pm
Steam Profile: STEAM_0:0:9248565
Location: ::1
Contact:

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by shadowsbane » December 5th, 2017, 4:02 pm

I honestly, seriously think this comes down to truth and logic. I don't even think that class-based protections come into play. The heart of the issue is: what did the baker say when denying service? The baker claims he told them (IIRC) that he'd make them a cake and give them the decorating supplies, make them a blank cake, or make them just about anything except a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage. If that is true, then class-based protections shouldn't even come into play because the baker did not refuse to provide service to a particular person or group; he refused to provide a particular service that violated his personal beliefs to anyone. I would be willing to bet that the baker also wouldn't bake a cake supporting gay marriage if it was requested by a straight person.

This holds true if you flip through various scenarios. If a straight person came into a bakery owned by a gay man asking for a cake that said "Homosexuality is a sin", that baker should have the right to refuse to do it - not because they're refusing to serve a straight person, but because they're refusing to provide a service that conflicts with their personal beliefs. And it's the same as if a white man came into a black-owned bakery asking for a cake that said "Blacks are worth 3/5 of a white man." The baker should be able to refuse, and I'd bet that many of the people arguing against this baker in the real situation would agree in both my hypothetical cases. It's not about the person requesting the service; it's about the service being requested.

But even if you argue that the customer has a right to that cake, the baker still wins in my view, and here's why:

The baker is refusing to make a cake that would be a violation of his religious beliefs. If you rule against the baker and say the baker must provide that service under the law if he is going to run a business, the baker now has to choose between violating his religious beliefs, or giving up the business that puts food on the table for his family. The baker is using his talents, skills, experience, and reputation to provide for himself and his family. If he chooses to maintain his religious beliefs and has to close down he now has to find new work - presumably in a different field. He has to give up the benefit that his talents, experience, etc. provide for him and start over.

The customer is requesting a cake that they believe they have a right to. If you rule against the customer and say that he does have the right to service, but not to a service like a message that violates the proprietor's beliefs, the customer has to go to a different store. The end. We are not talking about a life-saving service. We are not talking about a service that is only available from one place. We are not talking about a service that affects the customer's life in any way except convenience and being offended. But none of us has the right to not be offended.

Both the customer and the service provider have rights. The argument is about how far those rights extend. There is no question that the service being discussed violated the proprietor's beliefs. You don't get to tell someone what they believe. If he says it violates his beliefs, it does. So the real question is how far do the customer's rights extend? If the customer loses here, the only thing they lose is convenience and maybe a bit of happiness. If the baker loses, they lose their livelihood. So even if their rights do come into conflict with each other, we should look at the hardship that a decision either way would cause. The greater hardship falls on the baker by a very, very large margin.
word count: 684

Sabalanor
CC Member
CC Member
Posts: 171
Joined: May 11th, 2017, 12:35 pm
Battle.net Profile: Sabalanor#1527

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by Sabalanor » December 5th, 2017, 8:05 pm

Honestly, I feel like the baker is in the wrong. Selling a cake in no way violates his religion. He is not supporting it by performing a business transaction. To say you would bake something other than a cake and be ok with it is trivial. To say that if it violates your belief then it doesn't take into account history where a large percentage of people tried to his behind Christianity and other religions to discriminate against others.

Free markets in theory work too...but not always how the should. Same thing with communism. On paper, it is the best form of government but then people get involved and mess it up. To say 'Jesus doesn't support it' is a tricky excuse too. For example, he is not for drunkenness but he turned water into wine late into a party and people continued to drink. In my opinion, the baker can uphold their belief's and still bake a cake for a wedding be it a same sex or heterosexual wedding.

Just my two cents on this.
word count: 180

User avatar
shadowsbane
CC Member
CC Member
Posts: 6580
Joined: November 18th, 2008, 1:12 pm
Steam Profile: STEAM_0:0:9248565
Location: ::1
Contact:

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by shadowsbane » December 5th, 2017, 8:15 pm

Sabalanor wrote: Selling a cake in no way violates his religion. He is not supporting it by performing a business transaction.
Here's the thing, though: You don't get to decide what does or does not violate someone else's beliefs. The baker wasn't declining to bake them a generic cake. The cake they wanted would have had text on it with their names. I can very easily make a case that baking a wedding cake with the names of two men on it could be seen as a tacit endorsement of gay marriage. But again, that doesn't even matter. What matters is the belief of the person in question.
word count: 113

User avatar
NeoJabez
Council Operations
Council Operations
Posts: 10253
Joined: June 5th, 2005, 7:00 am

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by NeoJabez » December 5th, 2017, 10:31 pm

Without going too far into this, I have to agree with Ongurth and Shadowsbane.

A business owner is an entrepreneur, by definition a: "person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk." [Emphasis Mine.]

The market as a whole will decide if his refusal to serve one couple (for any reason) is enough to kill his business. It shouldn't be in the realm of the courts to even decide such a thing.

There was once a court case where a woman was fed up with a gym she attended, as they had a separate free weights room strictly for men. She took them to court and demanded her "right to the same weights as men."

The judge promptly threw out her case and told her to come back when that right was added to the the United States or even the State Constitution.
word count: 151
If serving is below you, leadership is beyond you. - Anonymous

Coram Deo, Soli Deo Gloria

Image

Sabalanor
CC Member
CC Member
Posts: 171
Joined: May 11th, 2017, 12:35 pm
Battle.net Profile: Sabalanor#1527

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by Sabalanor » December 11th, 2017, 3:32 pm

Your example is a false example in this case. In our laws, there is protection against sex discrimination. If the weight room said "only straight people" could work-out in that room, then they would have lost that lawsuit. That is the difference here. Yes, there are laws where you can't discriminate between male and female as well, but that isn't what the cake baker is.

"Here's the thing, though: You don't get to decide what does or does not violate someone else's
beliefs. The baker wasn't declining to bake them a generic cake."

This is a slippery slope that has already been challenged and won legally many times. Just because a person believes a black person is not an equal to a white person, does not mean they get a free pass. Segregation tried the "separate but equal" stuff as well in the "religious south" and it was proven to be completely unethical, discriminate, and illegal because people didn't do the equal part of that clause. So ultimately, all I am saying is that while I can't tell you if something is a legitimate belief or not...those claims need to also be weighed with logic.

My personal belief is I believe Jesus would probably bake them a cake. He went and did things that the religious thought heretical back then, and probably a lot of people would think the same thing (i.e. see earlier example of providing alcohol at the end of a party when they had already run out and were likely already drunk). Jesus shows love beyond anything, as he wants people to have a relationship with him. There are sins, and that is between each person and God. But I would try to side on the not being a hindrance to God's love being shown to people rather than preventing people from approaching Christians because of my actions to discriminate or isolate them previously.
word count: 329

User avatar
Kratos
Council Member
Council Member
Posts: 5630
Joined: May 19th, 2011, 7:50 pm
Steam Profile: joshfitz08
Location: Appleton, WI

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by Kratos » December 11th, 2017, 4:29 pm

Jesus would have baked them a cake? That's an interesting opinion.

I'm not sure I agree. Christ never, not one time, celebrated sin. He never enabled sinful behavior or encouraged sinful behavior. In fact, he reprimanded it many, many times.

One instance I'm sure you're referring to was "the adulterous woman" found in John 8.
Spoiler! :
3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]
Notice that Christ does NOT encourage her. He does not do anything that would suggest he's alright with her behavior. In fact, he tells her to go from now and sin no more.

Maybe you're referencing when he "ate with sinners" as Levi's house.
Spoiler! :
29 And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them. 30 And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
Here he even states, he's here to call sinners to repentance. Not to encourage their sin.

As for you example, the religious people of that day would not have thought he was heretical for creating wine. It is Jewish custom to drink throughout a wedding ceremony. In fact, most Jewish scholars believe that even priests could drink wine, as long as it wasn't during their duties.

So now, the argument goes from would Jesus bake a cake for them (a ridiculous question, imo) to is a homosexual marriage sinful? If you believe it is and you believe that Christ was never a proponent of sin, then you must believe he would reject the idea.
Sabalanor wrote: This is a slippery slope that has already been challenged and won legally many times.
It is just as slippery the other way, though. The moment the government can tell someone what is and isn't apart of their religious view is the day it's no longer your religious view. It's whatever they tell you it is.

The main point here isn't whether or not Biblically the baker was in the wrong, but more so according to American law. The question remains, should he have the right to refuse service for this? The answer, according to HIS rights, is yes. You should not be able to force him to do a service he does not want to do. In what world is that free? As stated in the video. He is not discriminating against them as homosexuals, against them as people. He is discriminating against AN EVENT. What, now events will be a protected class?

The question still remains, if a couple came in that was of German descent and they wanted swastikas on their cake. Should he be forced to bake that cake as well? That's the danger here. Freedom is not subjective. If the law says he has to make this cake, a baker will have to make a swastika filled one. A baker may have to make an anti-American cake.

These are all absurd. Baking a cake is a level of expression. He has the right to use his art how he sees fit.
word count: 754

User avatar
shadowsbane
CC Member
CC Member
Posts: 6580
Joined: November 18th, 2008, 1:12 pm
Steam Profile: STEAM_0:0:9248565
Location: ::1
Contact:

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by shadowsbane » December 11th, 2017, 5:21 pm

Sabalanor wrote:Your example is a false example in this case. In our laws, there is protection against sex discrimination. If the weight room said "only straight people" could work-out in that room, then they would have lost that lawsuit. That is the difference here. Yes, there are laws where you can't discriminate between male and female as well, but that isn't what the cake baker is.
False example? I don't understand what you're saying. I'm talking about the real, actual example being argued in SCOTUS.
Sabalanor wrote:
shadowsbane wrote:Here's the thing, though: You don't get to decide what does or does not violate someone else's beliefs. The baker wasn't declining to bake them a generic cake.
This is a slippery slope that has already been challenged and won legally many times. Just because a person believes a black person is not an equal to a white person, does not mean they get a free pass.
Let's stop there briefly so I can be clear: That's not the point I was making with the statement you quoted. My point is not that you get to believe whatever you want and act out those beliefs; it's that you - Sabalanor - do not get to look me, the baker, they gay couple, or anyone else in the eye and say "I know more about what you believe than you do, so try again." Here's what you said again:
Sabalanor wrote:Selling a cake in no way violates his religion.
What you're doing here is imposing your worldview onto someone else. He may study the same Bible you do, but his interpretation can be different. See Catholicism vs. Protestantism. You do not get to take your interpretation of the Bible and superimpose it over someone else's beliefs. You can speculate on what another person believes or thinks, but you do not get to decide for them what they actually believe.
Sabalanor wrote:Segregation tried the "separate but equal" stuff as well in the "religious south" and it was proven to be completely unethical, discriminate, and illegal because people didn't do the equal part of that clause.
Except that's not what's happening here. This isn't about "separate but equal". Again, he wasn't refusing to serve them; he was refusing to serve them a particular product.
Sabalanor wrote:So ultimately, all I am saying is that while I can't tell you if something is a legitimate belief or not...
Except that's exactly what you did.
Sabalanor wrote:My personal belief is I believe Jesus would probably bake them a cake.
I join Kratos/Josh (when did this happen, by the way?) in hearty disagreement with your assertion. I think Jesus would have definitely engaged with them. I refuse to speculate on what Jesus would have done beyond that, but I think it highly unlikely that he would have baked them a cake to celebrate their sinful union.
Sabalanor wrote:He went and did things that the religious thought heretical back then...
Yes, like actually talking to people considered sinners instead of shunning and pushing them to the fringes of society. Not by tacitly endorsing sin.
Sabalanor wrote:and probably a lot of people would think the same thing (i.e. see earlier example of providing alcohol at the end of a party when they had already run out and were likely already drunk).
Or there were just a lot of people.
Sabalanor wrote:Jesus shows love beyond anything, as he wants people to have a relationship with him. There are sins, and that is between each person and God.
That's... another debate.
Sabalanor wrote:But I would try to side on the not being a hindrance to God's love being shown to people rather than preventing people from approaching Christians because of my actions to discriminate or isolate them previously.
You are right that we should avoid becoming a hindrance to the gospel working on the hearts of others, but don't become so comfortable with sin that you lose your saltiness.
Jesus wrote:You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.

Matthew 5:13
This baker believes that to use his artistic talents to create a cake for the celebration of sin would be sinful for him. That is a personal conviction that he has (see Romans 14), and whether you agree with him or not doesn't matter. Personally, I do agree with him, however that is not what I base my argument on.

Good post, Josh/Kratos (seriously, I don't like it, you're confusing me).
word count: 810

User avatar
loot
Posts: 41
Joined: November 20th, 2016, 6:16 pm
Steam Profile: STEAM_0:1:42100241
Location: Canada

Re: Supreme court: Same sex cake

Post by loot » December 11th, 2017, 5:29 pm

There are dozens of cake shops in Lakewood CO. The two men went purposely looking to cause trouble.
word count: 18

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest