KevinG Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 The government is not getting involved in what decorations are required or prohibited. It is completely up to the baker. If the baker doesn't want to bake wedding cakes, then they don't have to offer that to ALL of their customers. If the baker doesn't want to sell birthday cakes or for that matter cakes of any kind to gay customers, then they can voluntarily not bake any cakes for sale. It is quite simple. They can see their other baking goods. Pies, cookies, pastries etc. The government is not involved in WHAT the bakery sells, the government is only involved in making sure the bakery sells to ALL of their customers. Don't want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples? Fine, don't bake wedding cakes. Don't want to take photos of gay weddings? Fine, don't take photos of any weddings. What if the baker only wants to cater to Lithuanian, left handed, heterosexuals? Is he then compelled to bake for Lithuanian, heterosexual, righties because the government says its the right thing to do?
Kenngo1969 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I'm not playin'! How do you know EVERY gay marrage is like that? Just because there might be several like it, we throw them all away? Such black and white thinking there Ken. What about the polygamists, there are some men that have that in mind, I've listened to and read about, enough that have lived it, to know that truth. And I'm not talking about the Kody Brown family, and the majority like them!I didn't make any claims. Any claims that were made were in the linked article, and the linked article quoted several people in open marriages (gay and straight) about the supposed benefits of such marriages. If you have issues with claims made in that article, by all means bring them forward (probably in a different thread; I don't know if you can start threads, but if not, let me know if you would like me to start one and I'll be happy to do so.) I'm not defending any modern-day practitioners of polygamy, as they have nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (except, perhaps, for having apostatized from it.) My point was that historical polygamy as practiced when consistent with the then-existing doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with open marriages, and it doesn't. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Even if it is boiled down to just cakes. Do we really want to start having the government as arbitrator of what decorations are required or prohibited on cakes?We're well on our way in that direction!
Rob Osborn Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 No not at all. It would be a decision the baker would freely make based on his religous beliefs.. The government only forces businesses to not discriminate against their customers. The government does not force a baker to bake wedding cakes. They can sell cookies, pastries, etc. They can even sell cakes. Is all they have to choose to do is not sell wedding cakes. There are LOTS of bakers that don't do wedding cakes for various reasons.I live in the state of Idaho. As far as I know, there is not a law that prevents a cake baker from refusing service for a gay wedding.
Ahab Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 No not at all. It would be a decision the baker would freely make based on his religous beliefs.. The government only forces businesses to not discriminate against their customers. The government does not force a baker to bake wedding cakes. They can sell cookies, pastries, etc. They can even sell cakes. Is all they have to choose to do is not sell wedding cakes. There are LOTS of bakers that don't do wedding cakes for various reasons.Yeah and for some from now on it's going to be because they don't want to be legally required to make any cakes for any gay weddings, only being willing even if only rarely for righteous couples.The laws of this world are really screwed up.
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 License laws have to do with taxation and revenue. Some of them have to do with saftey and sanitation. If you can find a business license granting municipality that use moral tests, or blue laws to dictate the conditions of those licenses please link it here. I've never seen it. Not really. The purpose behind business licenses is to ensure compliance with the laws governing business. I said nothing about morals or the lack thereof. I would hope that all businesses operated in a moral and responsible manner to their employees and customers. At a very minimum I demand they follow the law, or get out of business. If they don't follow the law prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 How would you suggest that everyone support the Church's stance? What would that mean? Who would be giving and who would be taking in this give and take you are talking about? What would be gained and what would be lost?Sure, we can all ask that everyone do as Christ would do, baking any kind of cake and decorating it however anyone ordered one if that is really what Jesus would do, but what about the people who don't want to do what Jesus would do or don't think that is what he would do? Shall we just round them all up and put them in jail, or intimidate them with legal fines and fees?We need to seriously think this through, people. Laws can be amended if that's what is needed to do the right thing. I think members should do as it says in our Articles of Faith # 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
carbon dioxide Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) I think members should do as it says in our Articles of Faith # 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.But there are limits on that directive. We are to obey laws that are constitutional and just. We can ignore unjust laws through civil disobedience. The Church not complying with the anti-polygamy laws is one example where the laws were in clear violation of the First Amendment. IN the Old Testament, King Neb declared that nobody could pray, Daniel said no to that. Not praying was a clear offense to Daniel and he was just at disregarding that decree or law. Edited January 30, 2015 by carbon dioxide
california boy Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I live in the state of Idaho. As far as I know, there is not a law that prevents a cake baker from refusing service for a gay wedding.I think it has become crystal clear that you are bound and determined to discriminate against gays and who knows who else. Fine. Go ahead. Do what you want. I wish you well in your business. I have tried to show you a way where Christ tried to teach us that we should serve all God's Children, even the sinners. I have tried to show you that almost all people are sinners. We are all beggars unto Christ. For me, that is enough of a reason to not discriminate against ANYONE. I choose to serve who ever is in need of my services whether I am compelled to do so by the law of the land or by my own belief. I think I will be a better person by exhibiting compassion and charity towards everyone. I also think this approach is in keeping with the news conference's call for more understanding. I do know this. It just feels right. I have tried to show you how you could still be a baker, but just not sell wedding cakes. There are plenty of other bake goods you could offer. Sure you might miss out on a little money. But if you feel it is blood money, it seems to me like that small sacrifice would be worth it to you. I have also tried to show you that if you feel you have a right to discriminate, then you have the right to test those anti discrimination laws. Perhaps there is no Constitutional justification for them. Through all of this, you still defiantly want to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. If you feel that is an appropriate way to use your religion, then go ahead. Feel free. Like I said, I wish you well. 1
KevinG Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Not really. The purpose behind business licenses is to ensure compliance with the laws governing business. I said nothing about morals or the lack thereof. I would hope that all businesses operated in a moral and responsible manner to their employees and customers. At a very minimum I demand they follow the law, or get out of business. If they don't follow the law prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.Your assertion and personal belief as to why business licenses are ised notwithstanding...Please show me that example of a business license denied or granted on the basis of a moral issue or blue law. Any Secretary of States office or city municipality would have the terms. 1
KevinG Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Any society that allows us to discriminate against Klansmen and People in shorts comes with the price of those who would discriminate against Mormons, Gays or short people.Asking the Government to arbitrate is giving too much power to a few people who can a use the power as easily as Using it for good.I am with Bother Joseph and most of our Nations founders when I say "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.". 1
Tacenda Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I didn't make any claims. Any claims that were made were in the linked article, and the linked article quoted several people in open marriages (gay and straight) about the supposed benefits of such marriages. If you have issues with claims made in that article, by all means bring them forward (probably in a different thread; I don't know if you can start threads, but if not, let me know if you would like me to start one and I'll be happy to do so.) I'm not defending any modern-day practitioners of polygamy, as they have nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (except, perhaps, for having apostatized from it.) My point was that historical polygamy as practiced when consistent with the then-existing doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with open marriages, and it doesn't.If you look up "open marriage" on wiki, it brings up the polymorous relationship as being the tent over varied relationships such as polyandry, polygamy or polygyny. So historically and technically the LDS church had polygamy which were open marriages because they were legally married to one wife. But if you are talking spiritually wed, I concede to your being correct.
Ahab Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I think members should do as it says in our Articles of Faith # 12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.I do believe in being subject to those people, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, or that all of their laws are just and righteous, or that I can't try to change their stupid rules and steer them in the right direction.Just like sustaining a bishop doesn't mean I can't give him a piece of my mind.
Rob Osborn Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I think it has become crystal clear that you are bound and determined to discriminate against gays and who knows who else. Fine. Go ahead. Do what you want. I wish you well in your business. I have tried to show you a way where Christ tried to teach us that we should serve all God's Children, even the sinners. I have tried to show you that almost all people are sinners. We are all beggars unto Christ. For me, that is enough of a reason to not discriminate against ANYONE. I choose to serve who ever is in need of my services whether I am compelled to do so by the law of the land or by my own belief. I think I will be a better person by exhibiting compassion and charity towards everyone. I also think this approach is in keeping with the news conference's call for more understanding. I do know this. It just feels right. I have tried to show you how you could still be a baker, but just not sell wedding cakes. There are plenty of other bake goods you could offer. Sure you might miss out on a little money. But if you feel it is blood money, it seems to me like that small sacrifice would be worth it to you. I have also tried to show you that if you feel you have a right to discriminate, then you have the right to test those anti discrimination laws. Perhaps there is no Constitutional justification for them. Through all of this, you still defiantly want to use religion as an excuse to discriminate. If you feel that is an appropriate way to use your religion, then go ahead. Feel free. Like I said, I wish you well.God has said all the whoremongers will go to hell. What excuse do you think he has for discrimination?
california boy Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 God has said all the whoremongers will go to hell. What excuse do you think he has for discrimination?Seriously? You don't know the difference between God and a baker? Here is what God has said about how we should treat whoremongers. D&C 64: 9-10 9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. Now do you think for one minute God wants you to judge anyone before you decide they are worthy of your service to them?
Rob Osborn Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Seriously? You don't know the difference between God and a baker? Here is what God has said about how we should treat whoremongers. Now do you think for one minute God wants you to judge anyone before you decide they are worthy of your service to them?20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1st Timothy 5:20)We must always warn the saints and others who are lost sheep the dangers of sin so that they all fear. We thus preach homosexuality is a sin so that the world must fear.
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) But there are limits on that directive. We are to obey laws that are constitutional and just. We can ignore unjust laws through civil disobedience. The Church not complying with the anti-polygamy laws is one example where the laws were in clear violation of the First Amendment. IN the Old Testament, King Neb declared that nobody could pray, Daniel said no to that. Not praying was a clear offense to Daniel and he was just at disregarding that decree or law. We(individually) don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and/or just. There are just two peaceful and legal ways to change the law in the US. Make a new law, or get the courts to declare it unconstitutional. We actually appealed all the way the USSC. They decided that the laws against polygamy were constitutional. Don't get me started on what USSC decisions I don't approve of. Edited February 1, 2015 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 Seriously? You don't know the difference between God and a baker? Here is what God has said about how we should treat whoremongers. Now do you think for one minute God wants you to judge anyone before you decide they are worthy of your service to them? He said to turn the other cheek but he did nt say we had to take a beating. 1
ERayR Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 We(individually) don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and/or just. There are just two peaceful and legal ways to change the law in the US. Make a new law, or get the courts to declare it unconstitutional. We actually appealed all the way the USSC. They decided that the laws against polygamy were constitutional. Don't get me started on what USSC decisions I don't approve of. To appeal you first have to break a law then appeal your conviction. 1
california boy Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 He said to turn the other cheek but he did nt say we had to take a beating. Serving others that are sinning is like taking a beating? No wonder this is such an issue with so many of you. You feel like you are being persecuted for being asked to serve someone who is sinning. Do you think you should visit someone in prison, or would that be considered endorsing murder? Matthew 25.
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 Your assertion and personal belief as to why business licenses are ised notwithstanding...Please show me that example of a business license denied or granted on the basis of a moral issue or blue law. Any Secretary of States office or city municipality would have the terms. Take a look at all the various laws concerning the sale of alcohol.
pogi Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 comes with the price of those who would discriminate against...short people.
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 I agree with teaching correct principles and allowing people to govern themselves. I also believe that we need laws that set parameters and allow for justice to apply to all people and punish those who abuse their fellow citizens. In today's economy large corporations and conglomerates rule the day and small businesses - the corner baker, mechanic, retail store, etc. are the exception rather than the norm. I appreciate the idea of acknowledging that some citizens that have religious values that clash with the values of others. The clash is something that should be acknowledged as a personal issue between individuals. If there is real harm - i.e. it is the only business in town that provides the service resulting in verifiable harm - NOT that one's feelings got hurt because another thinks differently than you or does not celebrate one's values, etc. - then remedies should be offered, but I believe that we should create laws that apply to every single issue. Civil society governs itself best. Changing a society takes time and some people will get their feelings hurt, but I don't put a lot of value on compensating individuals because of hurt feelings. If someone does want to bake a cake they should be allowed not to bake a cake. The customer should walk across the street and buy from someone else. It is not difficult and there is no harm done. If enough people walk across the street how long do you think it will take some bakeries to change their policies? No law is needed and a more civil society results. I appreciate laws that are limited to situations of real harm between citizens. 1
ERayR Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 Serving others that are sinning is like taking a beating? No wonder this is such an issue with so many of you. You feel like you are being persecuted for being asked to serve someone who is sinning. Do you think you should visit someone in prison, or would that be considered endorsing murder? Matthew 25. I would appreciate it if you would cease condemning me for what you imagine I am like. It just so happens on this you are wrong. 2
Jeanne Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 As just a peon on the board here..may I anyway be appalled that anyone would refuse a wedding cake...for any reason..I don't know whether to laugh or cry..I work in a bakery,,it is a joy to provide any customer with what he/she wants or needs. That people, is what service is about. Now..I know you're not just talking about bakers and cakes here..but sometimes it would be nice and even sensible to have common sense. 1
Recommended Posts