pogi Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) So say someone wants me to do something for them that I feel and think would not be a good thing to do because I think they might get the impression that I approve of what they are doing enough to want to help them do it even though I don't want to help them do it. If that's all this is about for you, simply tell them that you are only selling them the cake because you have to. Make it clear to them that you don't approve and they will probably go to a different bakery anyway. They can't sue you for that. KevinG makes a much better argument. You cannot make this about support. That is a weak and empty argument, because you don't support them. This needs to be about free use of agency. But even then, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere or we would have anarchy. Edited February 13, 2015 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 If that's all this is about for you, simply tell them that you are only selling them the cake because you have to. Make it clear to them that you don't approve and they will probably go to a different bakery anyway. They can't sew you for that.KevinG makes a much better argument. You cannot make this about support. That is a weak and empty argument, because you don't support them. This needs to be about free use of agency. But even then, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere or we would have anarchy.But I don't have to sell them a cake. I can use my agency too and not sell them a cake because I don't feel right about doing that. I am not their slave, or a slave to this world. Whatever I do I do because I feel right about what I am doing. Not so that everyone will apreciate me as much as I think I and my services should be appreciated, but because I feel and think that what I do is a good thing to do, regardless of how people respond in return.The line to be drawn is between good and evil, and I will not knowingly do anything to be complicit in anything that is evil and wrong.
Pahoran Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 California Boy wrote: LOL. You don't deny that it is church policy to give temple recommends to people who work in gambling establishments and that Richard Bunker is the director of the country's most powerful casino lobby is not only Mormon, but a bishop of one of the Las Vegas wards. (Etc, etc.) Here's the thing, Caliboy: I don't have to chase every red herring you try to drag across the path. Clearly you and I have fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. I agree and acknowledge that there are things that are not good, but that doesn't mean they ought to be prohibited. For instance, I wouldn't expect an LDS baker to be punished for baking a cake for a "gay marriage." Likewise, I agree and acknowledge that there are things that are good and right, but that doesn't mean they should be compelled. You, however, seem to think that everything that isn't prohibited is promoted, and everything that isn't compelled is denigrated. And this is why the concept of civil liberties is relevant to this discussion, while your gleeful handful of factoids is not only irrelevant, but incompetent as well. Regards, Pahoran 2
KevinG Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 ... I wouldn't expect an LDS baker to be punished for baking a cake for a "gay marriage." He would if he used the chapel kitchen for something other than warming it up. Our insurance coverage just doesn't support it. Or at least that's what our facilities coordinator tells me. 1
pogi Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) But I don't have to sell them a cake. I can use my agency too and not sell them a cake because I don't feel right about doing that. I am not their slave, or a slave to this world. Whatever I do I do because I feel right about what I am doing. Not so that everyone will apreciate me as much as I think I and my services should be appreciated, but because I feel and think that what I do is a good thing to do, regardless of how people respond in return.The line to be drawn is between good and evil, and I will not knowingly do anything to be complicit in anything that is evil and wrong. You are right, you can choose regardless of what the law says. What happens if nondiscrimination passes? Once it becomes legal, you will then be faced with an ethical dilemma. Will you follow your original conscience and not bake the cake, or will you follow your conscience which tells you to obey the law of the land as the scriptures and prophets counsel? Edited February 12, 2015 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 You are right, you can choose regardless of what the law says. What happens if nondiscrimination passes? Once it becomes legal, you will then be faced with an ethical dilemma. Will you follow your original conscience and not bake the cake, or will you follow your conscience which tells you to obey the law of the land as the scriptures and prophets counsel?Simple. I ignore unrighteous laws made by unrighteous people and do only what I feel good and right about doing. Basically the opposite of what unrighteous people do when they ignore righteous laws and do only what they feel "good" and "right" about doing. Opposites are a lot alike, in principle, ya know. Just opposites. 1
USU78 Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that demonstrates how non-discrimination is explicit support or tacit approval for anything. When ever I bring this up, you resort to saying "If I don't want to do anything, I shouldn't have to". That does NOT explain how it is explicit support or tacit approval. Please explain to me how, non-discrimination could possibly be interpreted as explicit support of sin. Think about what the word means, "nondiscrimination". The plaintiffs/complainants would not be targeting Christians who happen to operate bakeries or run wedding chapels UNLESS there were a secondary, symbolic or ritual benefit to the plaintiffs/complainants in being able to force others to do things against their will. It is their very desire to dominate and bully that tells us that they very much believe that they can enjoin support and tacit approval for the horror that is homosexual "weddings."
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 The plaintiffs/complainants would not be targeting Christians who happen to operate bakeries or run wedding chapels UNLESS there were a secondary, symbolic or ritual benefit to the plaintiffs/complainants in being able to force others to do things against their will. It is their very desire to dominate and bully that tells us that they very much believe that they can enjoin support and tacit approval for the horror that is homosexual "weddings."And when it's the State or Federal government that mandates and coerces and intimidates others into doing things against their conscience? That's when I know what it means to be "of the world" and why the righteous generally consider the world to be in sin.
pogi Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Simple. I ignore unrighteous laws made by unrighteous people and do only what I feel good and right about doing. Muslim extremists would agree with you, the prophets wouldn't. You see, we believe in being subject to kings and governments and the rule of law according to AoF 12. Do you see how your philosophy is completely dangerous to society when we decide to give the middle finger to the rule of law and live however we feel like? Basically the opposite of what unrighteous people do when they ignore righteous laws and do only what they feel "good" and "right" about doing. Can one be unrighteous for following his conscience to the best of his ability? Do you see the irony here? You should be supporting these idiots!
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Muslim extremists would agree with you, the prophets wouldn't. You see, we believe in being subject to kings and governments and the rule of law according to AoF 12. Do you see how your philosophy is completely dangerous to society when we decide to give the middle finger to the rule of law and live however we feel like?Be careful about what you think I am saying, or how far I would go to "resist" the law. I'm not promoting doing anything that isn't righteous. I'd just rather go to jail or pay a fine than do something against my conscious, and I would submit to those penalties onlyl because I believe I am subject to those who govern this world. That doesn't mean I'm going to do whatever unrighteous people tell me to do, though. Look up civil disobedience on wiki or something. Can one be unrighteous for following his conscience to the best of his ability?No. Our conscience is the light of Christ and never wrong.Do see the irony here? You should be supporting these idiots!I see that you don't understand me. A pity.
pogi Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 No. Our conscience is the light of Christ and never wrong. If evil could never be confused for conscience, I would have no problem with your ideology. But I can guarantee you that someone is not going to blow themselves up in the name of jihad against their "conscience".
Pahoran Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Breaking news from just today regarding the bakery that refused service. The cost of discrimination is high:In other words:You have been warned. Hell hath no fury like a homosexual snubbed. When we demand something of you, bend over or face the consequences.That's the take-away message here, isn't it?Regards,Pahoran 2
pogi Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 In other words:You have been warned. Hell hath no fury like a homosexual snubbed. When we demand something of you, bend over or face the consequences.That's the take-away message here, isn't it?Regards,Pahoran That's inappropriate
USU78 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 That's inappropriate Nonsense. It was spot on: the very draconian-ness of the penalty for behavior that has, at most, inconvenienced another is best evidence of its tyranny and evil.
pogi Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Nonsense. It was spot on: the very draconian-ness of the penalty for behavior that has, at most, inconvenienced another is best evidence of its tyranny and evil. That's not what I was talking about.
USU78 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 That's not what I was talking about. The minor crudity? Hardly worth mentioning. Some skins need thickening.
Ahab Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 If evil could never be confused for conscience, I would have no problem with your ideology. But I can guarantee you that someone is not going to blow themselves up in the name of jihad against their "conscience".I fear you greatly underestimate the power of stupidity.
pogi Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) The minor crudity? Hardly worth mentioning. Some skins need thickening. First, homosexual rape is not "minor crudity", He could have just said F*** YOU! without the visual. Second, comparing those who support non-discrimination to a snubbed gay rapist is lame. That whole post reminds me of a sour confederate hurling childish insults at free nig**** Edited February 13, 2015 by pogi 1
pogi Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 I fear you greatly underestimate the power of stupidity. On the contrary, it is the overwhelming power of stupidity which encourages me to support nondiscrimination. You see, nondiscrimination puts blinders on stupidity, and gives us all a fair playing field. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Simple. I ignore unrighteous laws made by unrighteous people and do only what I feel good and right about doing.Basically the opposite of what unrighteous people do when they ignore righteous laws and do only what they feel "good" and "right" about doing.Opposites are a lot alike, in principle, ya know. Just opposites. Any number of people have played that game. Dr. Martin Luther King willingly went to jail for violating Jim Crow laws.
Ahab Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 On the contrary, it is the overwhelming power of stupidity which encourages me to support nondiscrimination. You see, nondiscrimination puts blinders on stupidity, and gives us all a fair playing field.Yep, you do greatly underestimate the power of stupidity.
Ahab Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Any number of people have played that game.Dr. Martin Luther King willingly went to jail for violating Jim Crow laws.Yes, and our Lord's prophets and apostles allowed worldly authorities to put them in jail too. I wouldn't call that a game, exactly, but I think I know what you mean.
USU78 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 First, homosexual rape is not "minor crudity", He could have just said F*** YOU! without the visual. Second, comparing those who support non-discrimination to a snubbed gay rapist is lame. That whole post reminds me of a sour confederate hurling childish insults at free nig**** I think maybe we're losing our sense of scale here. And who cares what some sour crank hurls at anybody?
california boy Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 California Boy wrote: Here's the thing, Caliboy: I don't have to chase every red herring you try to drag across the path.Clearly you and I have fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. I agree and acknowledge that there are things that are not good, but that doesn't mean they ought to be prohibited. For instance, I wouldn't expect an LDS baker to be punished for baking a cake for a "gay marriage."Likewise, I agree and acknowledge that there are things that are good and right, but that doesn't mean they should be compelled.You, however, seem to think that everything that isn't prohibited is promoted, and everything that isn't compelled is denigrated.And this is why the concept of civil liberties is relevant to this discussion, while your gleeful handful of factoids is not only irrelevant, but incompetent as well.Regards,Pahoran Actually what I believe is that we should obey the law of the land especially when there is no compelling religious or harmful reason not to. It is that simple. And if we think the law of the land is unjust, then we should change the law. In this case one would have to be completely against the anti discrimination laws that have been around for 50 years in order to not serve gays. The supreme court would probably not allow just one group to be discriminated against. That would not be equal protection under the law. But if you wanted to throw out all the anti discrimination laws and discriminate against everyone, then it would probably hold up under constitutional law. Some people like Ahab and perhaps you think that we should have the right to not be compelled to do anything such as serving blacks or Jews or Muslins or gays or any other group. I personally am not enamored with the idea of "we don't serve your kind here" kind of establishments. I think the anti discrimination laws have been a very positive influence in helping people treat others in a more Christ like way. But that doesn't mean you or Ahab or whoever does not have the right to try and reverse those laws. 2
california boy Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Be careful about what you think I am saying, or how far I would go to "resist" the law. I'm not promoting doing anything that isn't righteous. I'd just rather go to jail or pay a fine than do something against my conscious, and I would submit to those penalties onlyl because I believe I am subject to those who govern this world. That doesn't mean I'm going to do whatever unrighteous people tell me to do, though. Look up civil disobedience on wiki or something.No. Our conscience is the light of Christ and never wrong.I see that you don't understand me. A pity. I personally have no problem with you being willing to go to jail or pay large fines or both for breaking the law. What bothers me is that when people like the baker breaks the law, get's taken to court by the state of Oregon and ordered to pay a large fine for breaking the law, they scream that the gays are attacking Christianity. And that religious freedom is being threatened. None of that is true. They broke the law, they have to pay the penalty. In San Francisco, a group decided to protest the shooting of black youth on one of the busiest days of the year, the day after Christmas. So they barricaded themselves, stopped people from boarding BART (the transportation system) and refused to leave. They of course got hauled off to court. Now BART is demanding reparation for the loss of revenue of about $15,000 each. (I think that is the number). Now they are screaming how they are being persecuted for standing up for their beliefs. Wasn't it their choice to break the law and prevent BART from business? Shouldn't they be accountable for their actions? Civil Disobedience has a long history in this country. I think it is an important part of democracy. But that doesn't mean there are not consequences for actions. In the case of the Baker, there was no attack on their religious beliefs at all. It was just the penalties for breaking the law. I strongly am against war. If I was forced to go to war in a position where I had to kill another person, I would be willing to spend years in prison rather than go. But I wouldn't scream that I was being put in prison because I am gay. I would be put in prison because I broke the law. 1
Recommended Posts