But still current and newsworthy, a matter of perspective and understanding is good news all round, I think. I remember noting your report on this subject last week?
Bakers refuse gay couple for wedding cake - is this a Christian response?
- Thread starter dave_in_KWC
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
On the contrary. We are commanded to be discriminatory. "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them." How does baking the cake satisfy this charge?
great example... I think there's the idea of a 'compelling reason'... there's a compelling reason not to teach a felon martial arts...
but, I think, courts today aren't going to find a compelling reason to refuse service because someone is homosexual...
No Kman, re-read what you wrote. You contradicted yourself. Religious freedom means the bakers would not have to bake the cake due to their religious beliefs. You zigged when you should have zagged.
Personally, I'd bake the cake with blessings then donate the proceeds to conservative Christian politicians who will fight for me and my peeps. See how the game can be played?
The God of the Holy Bible is worthy of vindication, no doubt I like to think the slander and accusations by His opposers will be answered by truth. I am rebelious I am a sinner, I think God is the Only true ruler over mankind, He does not rule this world, I think.
V
Viligant_Warrior
Guest
That's irrelevant to the Christian, my friend.
John 17, NASB
16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
Philippians 3
18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ,
19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.
20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
Acts 5
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."
16 "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."
Philippians 3
18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ,
19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.
20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
Acts 5
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."
We belong to Christ before we belong to a nation, and as citizens of heaven, we are beholden first to Him, not Washington -- or Paris, or London, or Dubai, or wherever. And when the laws of men conflict with the laws of God, we must obey Him first.
Were you a Christian, you would probably not like having to make the choice of which law to obey, then.
Respect and obedience are not always the same thing, and one can respectfully decline to follow a law that is not in agreement with the word of God.
Lots of them. But none that supersede our real citizenship, nor our responsibilities to Him and His ways.
that's good thinking, imo... reminds me of something Jesus said about being clever... can't think of the passage...
I am not here to tell another what they should do it is up to the individual, all I am pointing out is the equaltiy law, break it and one might have to pay a price, that is all.
That pretty much sums up my theology..."Bumper Sticker Theology"
Why the sad face? Bumper sticker theology put into practice gets the Word out!
I would follow the Commands of the Christ and respect authority and the law of the land, I would simply make sacrifices where I thought I would gain good solid ground with the teachings of the Christ and obey authority, I would not protest, I might not like it but I am a sinner imperfect.
good point! harsh as it may sound, I don't think owners have as much religious freedom...
suppose you're a neo-nazi... can you refuse service to Jews? I don't think so... but you should be able to carry around a sign stating your beliefs...
R
Rosesrock
Guest
Post 48 you say you're rebellious now you say you wouldn't protest.
Which way did he go George? Which way did he go?
I could not care less what the "laws" of the land decree. I am interested in what the Lord has commanded of us. He is the one we will answer to.
I only hope it goes further than my bumperWhy the sad face? Bumper sticker theology put into practice gets the Word out!
...
B
BradC
Guest
When I grew up any business had the right to refuse anyone of their services, goods or products and it was at their own discretion. It did not happen that often but it did happen. When they did this they hurt their own business in a measure, but they had the right to refuse. The one who was refused had to go to a competitor to get what they needed but there was no law that prohibited businesses this right. Every single thing that the homosexual community has wanted in terms of rights has been achieved and struggled for by force. It has been forced on others either by amendment, by law or by accusation. I believe the reason for this is because who they want to be goes against nature and the way a man is made for a woman and a woman for a man. I will never change my conviction on this because I know it is right and according to how God has made us male and female.
This couple who owned the bakery had the right to refuse this patron on the basis of their personal conviction. They did not want to be a part of an event that was contrary to their marriage convictions between a man and woman. They should have that right if they choose to exercise it.
From Legal Zoom
What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?
If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?
The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.
To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.
Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.
A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.
In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.
In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays. (What the court did in the state of Oregon in this case was to make a judgment concerning this bakery couple's motivation and accused them of discrimination, despite the fact they had served this gay couple before. This couple had the right not to condone a marriage they did not approve of because of their personal convictions of that sacred institution)
Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.
“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.
There are two indisputable facts concerning same-sex marriages. One, they can not consummate their marriage, for that can only take place between a man and woman (penetration and copulation of semen and receptivity of that semen within the uterine cervix must take place), nor can they procreate between themselves without going outside the marriage and involve a third person (proxy). The natural act of consummating a marriage through sexual intercourse is the act of the man and the woman becoming one flesh and that can only take place between a man and woman (not by proxy or same-sex couples). In these two indisputable facts, love has no place or effect nor can it replace what these functions represent in a sacred marriage union of a man and woman becoming one flesh.
This couple who owned the bakery had the right to refuse this patron on the basis of their personal conviction. They did not want to be a part of an event that was contrary to their marriage convictions between a man and woman. They should have that right if they choose to exercise it.
From Legal Zoom
What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?
If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?
The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.
To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.
Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.
A couple of recent court cases illustrate the fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service. In each case, a Colorado baker was sued for violating discrimination laws.
In the first case, the baker refused service to a customer who wanted her to bake a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. But the court ruled that this was not discrimination because the baker had a consistent policy of refusing to create cakes that used derogatory language or imagery.
In the second case, a baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that it violated his religious beliefs. The court held the baker liable, saying that his reason was just a pretext for discriminating against gays. (What the court did in the state of Oregon in this case was to make a judgment concerning this bakery couple's motivation and accused them of discrimination, despite the fact they had served this gay couple before. This couple had the right not to condone a marriage they did not approve of because of their personal convictions of that sacred institution)
Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.
“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.
There are two indisputable facts concerning same-sex marriages. One, they can not consummate their marriage, for that can only take place between a man and woman (penetration and copulation of semen and receptivity of that semen within the uterine cervix must take place), nor can they procreate between themselves without going outside the marriage and involve a third person (proxy). The natural act of consummating a marriage through sexual intercourse is the act of the man and the woman becoming one flesh and that can only take place between a man and woman (not by proxy or same-sex couples). In these two indisputable facts, love has no place or effect nor can it replace what these functions represent in a sacred marriage union of a man and woman becoming one flesh.