Have Your Same Sex Wedding Cake And Eat It Too

[BCSpace]

An excellent, and Christian, idea for combating this (or any other) movement:

 

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” – Matthew 10:16

Christians are losing because of their lack of wisdom. Let me explain.

A lesbian couple sued and won a discrimination lawsuit against Christian farm owners Robert and Cynthia Gifford of New York after they refused to allow a same-sex wedding on their scenic property.

Despite the fact that the Christian business owners have hosted same-sex events and have even hired homosexuals, a New York judge ruled that they were in violation of that state’s anti-discrimination laws and fined them $13,000. As a result, the Giffords have now stopped hosting weddings altogether.

According to their attorney, “The couple has decided to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business.”

That’s unfortunate. Too many Christians lack real wisdom when dealing with evil; and as a result, they are losing their livelihoods and suffering unnecessarily.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Consider this …

What if, instead of closing their businesses, the Christians agreed to allow the same-sex union ceremonies on their property, but told the lesbian couple upfront that they would take their money and donate it to a conservative Christian law firm to fight against same-sex marriage? In other words, what if they took the sinners’ money and used it for good?

I floated this idea on my radio program and received calls from solid, stand-up Christians who could not even consider the possibility of doing this. They said that providing the service would go against their conscience and equated it to condoning the sin. But to me, using the sinners’ money to help restore God’s order is the right thing to do.

Some Christians may feel like they’re compromising their principles, but consider the outcome of these recent examples of well-meaning Christians who took what appeared to be a principled stance against evil without – in my opinion – the benefit of God-revealed wisdom:

    The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an Oregon bakery, refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, and are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

    Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Show in Colorado, was ordered by a judge to either provide his service for gay weddings or face fines. Mr. Phillips has vowed to stop making wedding cakes completely.

    New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled in August that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act.

    The Washington state attorney general filed a lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding.

It’s commendable that these Christians are taking a stand, but I believe that their methods are unwise and are causing them undue suffering.

LGBT groups have deep pockets, and most small businesses cannot afford to spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in protracted legal battles. And even if Christians can afford to do battle in court, they often lose when they appear in front of liberal judges who are sympathetic to homosexuals.

But I say that Christians can have their cake and eat it, too!

Taking the sinners’ money does not equate to condoning the sin. It just means that we would be better funded and equipped to do battle.

The Bible says: “We are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” – Romans 8:37

“And he called his ten servants, and delivered to them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.” – Luke 19:13

It’s our duty, as God’s children to fight to win – not “occupy” in the modern sense of just showing up without any real hope of victory. We need to be thinking like Mel Gibson in the movie “Ransom” where – instead of playing the typical victim – he turns the tables on his son’s kidnappers.

If every Christian business owner had the mindset of using the sinners’ money for the good and said: “I don’t condone your sin, but I’ll take your money and use it to fight against you” – the outcome would be good and pleasing to God.

If Christians did this, here’s what would happen:

Homosexuals would stop trying to force us to provide services for their “weddings” because they would know that we would use their money to fight against their destructive idea of marriage.

And since we would be following the law (until we can change it), we’d be less likely to be sued. If we were sued, we would likely win because we would not be “discriminating” against anyone.

Many Christians who stand rigidly on principle without wisdom feel a false sense of righteousness, and suffer merely to show how holy they are. God’s children should be persecuting sinners with the rod of truth; instead, Christians are the ones being persecuted for their lack of wisdom.

This is how our faith instructs us to deal with evil. If we go on the offensive with wisdom and boldness, we cannot lose. It’s time for Christians to stop losing and become “more than conquerors” once again.

 

 

Christians, here's solution to 'gays' suing your businesses

 

 

Is this just a case of Romans 1:32 (Advocating and advancing sinful behavior without actually doing it yourself)? What other ways can 'sinner's' money be taken and used for good? I think in this case, it's ethical.  There are other cases where I'm sure that's debatable.

[Storm Rider]

I never feel good about being forced to do something against my will or desires.  It affects my interest in doing a good job.  To me it is pretty stupid telling someone that I am not going to serve you because of xyz.  If they want to force someone to serve them, I see no problem in providing lousy service.  What I find so egregious in these examples is the number of services already available by the gay community already.  You really want me to believe there were no gay cake decorators, florists, or photographers?  Oh puleez, somebody slap that child.  

 

Each of these instances were political statements being made by the gay people forcing someone to do something against their will.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  If they ask for it, give it to them.  They may not like what they get, but that is their own fault.  I will bet you don't get asked again and they can take that little dog and pony show to the next establishment to achieve their political objectives.  

[thesometimesaint]

I never feel good about being forced to do something against my will or desires.  It affects my interest in doing a good job.  To me it is pretty stupid telling someone that I am not going to serve you because of xyz.  If they want to force someone to serve them, I see no problem in providing lousy service.  What I find so egregious in these examples is the number of services already available by the gay community already.  You really want me to believe there were no gay cake decorators, florists, or photographers?  Oh puleez, somebody slap that child.  

 

Each of these instances were political statements being made by the gay people forcing someone to do something against their will.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  If they ask for it, give it to them.  They may not like what they get, but that is their own fault.  I will bet you don't get asked again and they can take that little dog and pony show to the next establishment to achieve their political objectives.  

 

How would you feel about this?

 

I never feel good about being forced to do something against my will or desires.  It affects my interest in doing a good job.  To me it is pretty stupid telling someone that I am not going to serve you because of xyz.  If they want to force someone to serve them, I see no problem in providing lousy service.  What I find so egregious in these examples is the number of services already available by the LDS community already.  You really want me to believe there were no LDS cake decorators, florists, or photographers?  Oh puleez, somebody slap that child.  

 

Each of these instances were political statements being made by the LDS people forcing someone to do something against their will.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  If they ask for it, give it to them.  They may not like what they get, but that is their own fault.  I will bet you don't get asked again and they can take that little dog and pony show to the next establishment to achieve their political objectives.

[bluebell]

That seems like a viable idea.

 

And it would likely result in the gay or lesbian couple choosing to give their business to someone else and therefore solve everyone's problems upfront.  

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but i wouldn't WANT to have someone who believed my lifestyle and choice was a sin against God having anything to do with my wedding.  I doubt any homosexual couples would want that either, so i agree that their decision to force people to do so is likely completely political.  Not that that makes it wrong.  Everyone has to pick their battles i guess.

[Mystery Meat]

 

How would you feel about this?

 

I never feel good about being forced to do something against my will or desires.  It affects my interest in doing a good job.  To me it is pretty stupid telling someone that I am not going to serve you because of xyz.  If they want to force someone to serve them, I see no problem in providing lousy service.  What I find so egregious in these examples is the number of services already available by the LDS community already.  You really want me to believe there were no LDS cake decorators, florists, or photographers?  Oh puleez, somebody slap that child.  

 

Each of these instances were political statements being made by the LDS people forcing someone to do something against their will.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  If they ask for it, give it to them.  They may not like what they get, but that is their own fault.  I will bet you don't get asked again and they can take that little dog and pony show to the next establishment to achieve their political objectives.

 

 

I feel great about it. As a member of the LDS faith, I think it would be downright evil (yes, I said evil) of me to try and force someone to do something they didn't want to. If someone doesn't want to provide a service to me because I am Mormon, I say thanks for letting me know and I take my business elsewhere. 

 

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Especially when we are talking about cake, flowers, and photos.

 

Moreover, your comparison falls flat on its face to be quite honest. These people were not refusing service because the customers were gay. They were refusing service because they didn't want to support a gay wedding. A better comparison would have been, "How would you feel if a baker refused to make a wedding cake for your third polygamous marriage?"

 

To that my answer would remain the same as above. Easy.

[Daniel2]

Personally, I don't care what the religious beliefs are of whomever is serving me lunch, doing my taxes, washing my car, giving me medical care, or any other public service. If they give substandard care because they disagree with my beliefs or choices and violate public accommodation laws, then darn tootin' I expect our legal system to do something about it.

Anyone in the business of earning money is free to spend their money on whatever endeavors they see fit and worthy.

At this point, money spent fighting marriage equality is a money spent on a lost cause. What is being suggested above is like cutting off your nose to spite your face, and would likely bring unwanted negative publicity.

When it comes to marriage equality, no unhallowed hand can stop this work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, and Christians may threaten to give money to anti-gay organizations, but equality will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every state, and sounded in every ear, and the Supreme Court shall say, the work is done.

I find it both humorous and cowardly when people say, "I object to being forced to comply with public accommodation laws against my religion, and wouldn't care if people refused to serve me because I'm Mormon...." when you know you're already protected.

Talk is cheap. I'll believe you when you put your words into action and proactively work to pass legislation to remove "religion" from the protection of public accommodation laws.

[thesometimesaint]

I feel great about it. As a member of the LDS faith, I think it would be downright evil (yes, I said evil) of me to try and force someone to do something they didn't want to. If someone doesn't want to provide a service to me because I am Mormon, I say thanks for letting me know and I take my business elsewhere. 

 

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. Especially when we are talking about cake, flowers, and photos.

 

Moreover, your comparison falls flat on its face to be quite honest. These people were not refusing service because the customers were gay. They were refusing service because they didn't want to support a gay wedding. A better comparison would have been, "How would you feel if a baker refused to make a wedding cake for your third polygamous marriage?"

 

To that my answer would remain the same as above. Easy.

 

Utter nonsense.

 

All laws are to force you do something you may or may not want to do.

 

The minute you provide a public good or service you voluntarily give up your right to determine who can buy your good or service. Even if it is cakes, flowers, photos.

 

Say I don't want to support a LDS wedding. I feel it is an immoral thing to do. Was Brigham Young not entitled to celebrate his wedding days with a wedding cake? Is there some limit as to how many wedding cakes one person can order?

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

Say I don't want to support a LDS wedding. I feel it is an immoral thing to do. Was Brigham Young not entitled to celebrate his wedding days with a wedding cake? Is there some limit as to how many wedding cakes one person can order?

 

He could have made the cake himself.

[thesometimesaint]

He could have made the cake himself.

 

Possibly. Though I have a bit of a disconnect with seeing him as a baker. My daughter-in-law made her own wedding cake, but she's a semi-professional baker.

[bluebell]

Personally, I don't care what the religious beliefs are of whomever is serving me lunch, doing my taxes, washing my car, giving me medical care, or any other public service. If they give substandard care because they disagree with my beliefs or choices and violate public accommodation laws, then darn tootin' I expect our legal system to do something about it.

Anyone in the business of earning money is free to spend their money on whatever endeavors they see fit and worthy.

At this point, money spent fighting marriage equality is a money spent on a lost cause. What is being suggested above is like cutting off your nose to spite your face, and would likely bring unwanted negative publicity.

When it comes to marriage equality, no unhallowed hand can stop this work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, and Christians may threaten to give money to anti-gay organizations, but equality will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every state, and sounded in every ear, and the Supreme Court shall say, the work is done.

I find it both humorous and cowardly when people say, "I object to being forced to comply with public accommodation laws against my religion, and wouldn't care if people refused to serve me because I'm Mormon...." when you know you're already protected.

Talk is cheap. I'll believe you when you put your words into action and proactively work to pass legislation to remove "religion" from the protection of public accommodation laws.

 

For most things i wouldn't personally care either.  For my wedding, i wouldn't want people hostile to the idea involved though if i was aware of it and if i had other perfectly workable options.

 

But a lot of people aren't like you and i.  Think of those people who got that likeable waitress fired from her job in California just because she gave a few dollars to the Prop. 8 cause and they found out about it.  That's not something i consider moral, but many many other people do and the law supports it.

[Mystery Meat]

Possibly. Though I have a bit of a disconnect with seeing him as a baker. My daughter-in-law made her own wedding cake, but she's a semi-professional baker.

 

I am sure he could have found someone who didn't have any problem making him a cake. 

 

And even if he couldn't, no where is he guaranteed the right to have a cake at his wedding.

[Daniel2]

For most things i wouldn't personally care either. For my wedding, i wouldn't want people hostile to the idea involved though if i was aware of it and if i had other perfectly workable options.

Sometimes there may not be other options; but most times, there shouldn't have to be. Public accommodation laws don't exist in spite of American ideals--they exist because of and in support of them.

But a lot of people aren't like you and i. Think of those people who got that likeable waitress fired from her job in California just because she gave a few dollars to the Prop. 8 cause and they found out about it. That's not something i consider moral, but many many other people do and the law supports it.

I am not familiar with the example you cite, but it doesn't sound moral (or potentially legal) as described. Can you provide a source?

[bluebell]

Sometimes there may not be other options; but most times, there shouldn't have to be. Public accommodation laws don't exist in spite of American ideals--they exist because of and in support of them.

 

I'm not sure about that really.  America and it's 'ideals' have been around a long time.  Public accommodation laws are pretty recent.  And while i completely agree with the idea behind them, i don't agree with the idea that their mere existence proves their moral correctness.   

 

I am not familiar with the example you cite, but it doesn't sound moral (or potentially legal) as described. Can you provide a source?

 

It's been so long (since 2008) i can't find that specific example anymore.  But here are a couple of other equal examples.   They show how many people really DO care very strongly about the beliefs of those who they come in contact or do business with.  

 

http://www.peacelovelunges.com/blog/luv/el-coyote-owner-expresses-regret-over-prop-8-contribution-but-boycott-looms/

 

http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/84812/

[strappinglad]

I haven't met many contractors who are finished on time and on budget. In my case I rarely set a specific date for completion of a project because there are too many variables. My health, the weather, availability of materials, unforeseen circumstances, etc. Sometimes emergencies crop up and a project might be set back a couple of days , or weeks, or months. How often to you get in to see the doctor at the appointed time? Probably cake makers and photographers and florists can't avail themselves of those parameters.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

An excellent, and Christian, idea for combating this (or any other) movement:

 

 

Is this just a case of Romans 1:32 (Advocating and advancing sinful behavior without actually doing it yourself)? What other ways can 'sinner's' money be taken and used for good? I think in this case, it's ethical.  There are other cases where I'm sure that's debatable.

Gov't does it all the time...it is in fact the very foundation of fines and penalties. When I would arrest or write citations when someone ripped off and old couple, I would seek for full restoration. In many cases if done before court date I would drop the charges.

[ERayR]

Utter nonsense.

 

All laws are to force you do something you may or may not want to do.

 

The minute you provide a public good or service you voluntarily give up your right to determine who can buy your good or service. Even if it is cakes, flowers, photos.

 

Say I don't want to support a LDS wedding. I feel it is an immoral thing to do. Was Brigham Young not entitled to celebrate his wedding days with a wedding cake? Is there some limit as to how many wedding cakes one person can order?

 

That might be so if it were the only game in town but since it is not then whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".  I would not want to force anyone to provide goods or services to me.  Substandard goods or service just might be the result. 

[Judd]

I don't think anyone should be legally forced to support (bake cakes, take photographs, host weddings, etc.) something they would be morally against.

For instance, I don't think a:

-Homosexual man who owns a catering business should be forced to cater for a "Save Traditional Marriage" fund raiser if he does not feel comfortable doing so.

-A vegan woman who has a photography business be obligated to photograph pictures for an article being run about the new BBQ joint in town.

-A Muslim commercial producer to be required to direct a "Fund Israel" ad to be played on Fox News.

[Storm Rider]

 

How would you feel about this?

 

I never feel good about being forced to do something against my will or desires.  It affects my interest in doing a good job.  To me it is pretty stupid telling someone that I am not going to serve you because of xyz.  If they want to force someone to serve them, I see no problem in providing lousy service.  What I find so egregious in these examples is the number of services already available by the LDS community already.  You really want me to believe there were no LDS cake decorators, florists, or photographers?  Oh puleez, somebody slap that child.  

 

Each of these instances were political statements being made by the LDS people forcing someone to do something against their will.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  If they ask for it, give it to them.  They may not like what they get, but that is their own fault.  I will bet you don't get asked again and they can take that little dog and pony show to the next establishment to achieve their political objectives.

 

 

Are you stating this like it is a problem?  Look, this is simple.  I grew up in the south.  The LDS people were hated and persecuted.  Children were told not to play with Mormon children; some school teachers made special effort to make school more than difficult; and every Mormon youth knew where not to go to apply for a job.  It was an annoyance because we all knew where we could go; what teachers to take; and there were always places where we were judged by our actions and not our church affiliation.  

 

WHAT I DETEST is for stupid people to abuse a businesses time, effort, and financial health to make political hay.  I don't believe for one instant that in each of these example the people actually wanted that specific service - that these companies had the best deal around - these businesses were targeted to make a point politically.  Not a single one of these gay people were harmed in any way and it did not delay their celebration in any way, shape, or form.  

 

You can take that snake oil, psuedo-comparison down the street.  I am not buying it.  Seriously, you really think that you don't prefer buying from people just like you or that agree with your sexual preferences?  It might be time for you to dwell among the gay click a little more and get off that high horse. 

[BCSpace]

I don't think anyone should be legally forced to support (bake cakes, take photographs, host weddings, etc.) something they would be morally against.

 

I agree. But in the case of the OP, it's a case of absorbing and redirecting/remaking the effect into something that turns in one's favor.

[Storm Rider]

This topic that somehow gay people are so much better than everyone else and they needed to be treated superior to everyone is just naive. We have a market place and some businesses provide great service, some businesses provide acceptable service, and others provide lousy service.  Where in this market place is it required that somehow because a gay person/couple shows up on your doorstep that everyone must bow, kowtow, and provide superior service for no other reason than their sexual preference?

 

On a daily basis, on a minute-by-minute basis, poor service is provided consistently throughout the world.  Sometimes it is because that is the sum total of the service provided regardless of who walks through the door.  On other occasions people are provided poor service because they are pigs, unlikable, and completely rude.  

 

Now, let's take the example of the gay person that comes through door and demands service.  He is told that the business cannot provide the service requested due to other business engagements.  They ask for another date and and it is also taken.  Then he demands service and if not he will sue because he is gay.  We have the classic example of special rights.  I am gay and therefore I should be served first.  

 

Then a business is forced to provide service.  How motivated is a human that is forced to provide service?  Why should a gay person be provided service in a superior fashion?  Why should anyone be served only because a business if fearful of being sued if they don't?   

[thesometimesaint]

I am sure he could have found someone who didn't have any problem making him a cake. 

 

And even if he couldn't, no where is he guaranteed the right to have a cake at his wedding.

 

Why should he have to look for someone else whom is in the business of making and selling cakes?

 

No one is guaranteed a cake, but if I'm in the business of making cakes I will sell you one, or however many you want to buy. .

[thesometimesaint]

That might be so if it were the only game in town but since it is not then whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".  I would not want to force anyone to provide goods or services to me.  Substandard goods or service just might be the result. 

 

It really doesn't matter if they're the only game in town or not. We have laws against discrimination based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.

 

The claim to the right of refusal to provide a public good or service based on any of the above list is null and void on its face.

 

Ideally we shouldn't have to force anyone to do the right thing. We have laws for those that can't/won't live up to that ideal.

 

Substandard goods and services are usually controlled by the market. Unfortunately there are those where substandard crosses the line into criminal behavior. IE;  Knowingly producing a substandard jet engine part that fails and leads to the death of innocent people.

[EllenMaksoud]

An excellent, and Christian, idea for combating this (or any other) movement:

 

 

Is this just a case of Romans 1:32 (Advocating and advancing sinful behavior without actually doing it yourself)? What other ways can 'sinner's' money be taken and used for good? I think in this case, it's ethical.  There are other cases where I'm sure that's debatable.

Owing perhaps to the variety of my cultural experiences, and having experienced rejection at times myself, I never feel right about being unkind to anyone, um "mostly". Obviously being human, I am not always Godly.

 

For me, the only one who can judge is God full stop. If I judge another, then I am failing God. Part of this is from my Muslim exposure. However, the Muslim world is nothing to admire just now.

 

The GBLT set for me are hard to deal with. So many of them are so militant and demanding, which makes me not want to do what they ask. I think it is fine to make a lesbian or gay wedding cake, but further participation perhaps not so much. And, sometimes doing God's will gets you crucified.  Insisting that we should be treated well with respect to our beliefs is just empty.

 

I have been at events and dinner parties where there are gays and lesbians are present. If we just remain who we are it is the best we can do.

[california boy]

This topic that somehow gay people are so much better than everyone else and they needed to be treated superior to everyone is just naive. We have a market place and some businesses provide great service, some businesses provide acceptable service, and others provide lousy service.  Where in this market place is it required that somehow because a gay person/couple shows up on your doorstep that everyone must bow, kowtow, and provide superior service for no other reason than their sexual preference?

 

On a daily basis, on a minute-by-minute basis, poor service is provided consistently throughout the world.  Sometimes it is because that is the sum total of the service provided regardless of who walks through the door.  On other occasions people are provided poor service because they are pigs, unlikable, and completely rude.  

 

Now, let's take the example of the gay person that comes through door and demands service.  He is told that the business cannot provide the service requested due to other business engagements.  They ask for another date and and it is also taken.  Then he demands service and if not he will sue because he is gay.  We have the classic example of special rights.  I am gay and therefore I should be served first.  

 

Then a business is forced to provide service.  How motivated is a human that is forced to provide service?  Why should a gay person be provided service in a superior fashion?  Why should anyone be served only because a business if fearful of being sued if they don't?   

 

I heard these exact same arguments justifying discrimination against blacks during the civil rights.  

 

"This topic that somehow black people are so much better than everyone else and they needed to be treated superior to everyone is just naive. We have a market place and some businesses provide great service, some businesses provide acceptable service, and others provide lousy service.  Where in this market place is it required that somehow because a black person/couple shows up on your doorstep that everyone must bow, kowtow, and provide superior service for no other reason than because they are black."  

 

Sound familiar?  Do we really want to go back to a country that discriminates?  Or maybe you were in favor of racial discrimination as well?  And just how far back are you willing to go?  Should we go back to the time when Mormons were driven out of Missouri just because they were Moromon?  After all, there are other states they can go to that accept Mormons.   Geez, for a religion that experienced real discrimination, I find it appalling that some are willing to support discrimination of any kind.  

 

Baking a wedding cake or renting your venue out for a gay wedding does not mean you support gay marriage.  Did the church owned Hotel Utah require couples to show their wedding licenses before the church rented them a room to prove they were legally married?  Was the Hotel Utah condoning breaking the Word of Wisdom by serving coffee?  How about the guy in my ward that owned a restaurant?  Was he condoning breaking the WofW by serving coffee in his restaurant?  Was I condoning breaking the WofW by serving customers coffee?  How about a Muslin grocery clerk that rings up a slab of bacon.  Just where should the line be drawn???

 

It all sounds to me like some "christians" have decided that gay marriage is some kind of HUGE sin that they must make some stand against.  Do they run their other customers through some kind of grilling to make sure they are not committing any sins?  Is it a bigger sin for a gay person to get married then it is for them to just live with their partner?  Does marriage require the customer to be without sin???  

[ERayR]

I heard these exact same arguments justifying discrimination against blacks during the civil rights.  

 

 

So are you claiming to be a different race?