Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[Rivers]

Christ taught that we should "render unto Ceaser that which belongs to Ceaser."  Bakers  can bake the wedding cakes to appease the government while still standing firm in their religious beliefs.

[california boy]

So mystery meat now that we have a little more knowledge of these "Christian" bakers I would like to ask you a few questions

1. Do you still think this is an of an attack on religion?

 

Yes.

2. At some point does it ever in your mind become an attack on this gay couple?

 

Very possible. But not in this case based on facts available.

3. Are you ever offended that these "Christian" bakers use the name of Christ to justify their behavior?

 

I might disagree with their personal interpretation, but offended no. I would be more offended if they were telling others they were terrible or insincere Christians, while selectively ignoring certain other  teachings of the Savior.

4. Do you think that the excessive penalty awarded the gay couple is justified?

 

No. From all indications they were public record. Do I think it was stupid to publish them, yes. Criminal? No. Worthy of fine? No.

5. Do you think the bakers have been manipulating the press about them being victims?

 

Perhaps. But I don't think publishing public records means they did anything of legal consequence.

6. Who do you think are the real victims in this case? Still the bakers? Could it ever be the gay couple?

 

I am not sure there are any innocent people here. Certainly not the lesbian couple. I am reluctant to call the bakers villains for publish documents that were part of the public record. I have no doubt they could have behaved better, however.

I would just like to know your thoughts since you have spent the last 15 pages defending their behavior.

 

If you would have actually listened you would know there is a big distinction between condoning bad behavior and defending someone's right to engage in what you or me might consider bad behavior. I don't believe I have ever defended their behavior, but I have defended their right to make choices based on their religious convictions.

I want to thank you for answering my questions to you. I think it is apparent that we are on completely opposite sides in this issue. I certainly have a different set of life experiences than you. I grew up in the 60's and saw first hand the ugliness and brutality of discrimination much of it justified by religious beliefs. Even as a kid I was a bit obsessed with the injustice and unjustified use of the name of Christ to somehow couch this evil as some kind of acceptable behavior.

This evil justification has been going on for centuries. It is not a new development. I just finished reading a book about the Knights of St John much of which touched upon the evils done by those men in the name of Christ. This is just the latest contemporary reiteration of these crusades.

Do I strongly support religious liberty? Absolutely. But I don't think the religious liberty is compromised or threatened by baking a cake. Do I think this couple can break the law? Of course criminals do it every day. If they want to break the law for any reason they can. But religious beliefs is not a license to break the law and be free of consequences. I have no sympathy for the current legal situation they find themselves in nor do I give any support for their unchrisike behavior. they should be shamed not made heros.

[california boy]

If I could find one shred of evidence that Christ taught such a principle of withholding services to others then I would be MUCH more willing to accept such a belief. But I can't. Yes the scriptures teach to cry repentance. But no one if preventing this couple from .crying repentance. Perhaps if you or anyone else could show where Christ taught his followers this concept of refusing services to others I would be MUCH more understanding. Until then it just looks like using religion to justify something that is against the law.

If I could find one shred of evidence that Christ taught such a principle of complaining to the government that I would be MUCH more willing to accept the lesbian couple's position and their supporters who have not so humbly taken it upon themselves to judge how Christian the bakers are. But I can't. Yes the scriptures teach to love thine enemy. But refusing to bake a wedding cake does not mean this couple does not love. Perhaps if you or anyone else could show me where Christ taught his followers this concept of taking your complaints to the government I would be MUCH more understanding. Until then it just looks like petty entitlement on the part of the couple, and blatant hypocrisy by their supporters who selectively apply Christ's teaching to the bakers, but not to the lesbian couple to justify sinful behavior that is against the laws of God.

WOW. We are so far apart on this issue. You seriously think that Christ taught that he was above the law and we should not submit ourselves to it even if we dont think the law was justified? Do you remember HOW he ended up on the cross? You seriously think that the gospel of Jesus Christ prohibits seeking redress from the law when someone has done something completely illegal? Unbelievable. I could think of a dozen teachings on this subject. I am sure you could as well if you wanted to.

If by chance you are unable to I would be more than happy to provide as many examples of church leaders both teaching this principle and practicing this principle of seeking redress before the law.

Villianizing the gay couple for seeking redress before the law is rather bizarre.

Edited July 12, 2015 by california boy

[mikegriffith1]

They were fined $130,000 for not wanting to provide a wedding cake for a SSM. $130,000. Wow. That is insane. Oregon just effectively put that couple out of business for trying to standup for their beliefs. $130,000....that is crazy. This world is messed up.

With as brazenly anti-Christian as Democratic politicians are becoming, I don't know how any faithful Mormon could be a Democrat. I really don't.

 

No politics!

[Mystery Meat]

So too is villianizing the bakers for simply saying, no thanks, that violates our deeply held religious beliefs, and that was my point. Sorry you missed it. Yet, you are on a crusade; a crusade to publicly shame anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on this. I find that behavior so unchristlike and shameful. I have admitted many times that I am not sure I would act in the same way as this couple. I have even said they have done some things wrong. You can't even open your eyes and admit that the lesbian couple did anything wrong or see the anger, meanness, and ugliness in your own positios in this thread. I am sure you feel like a hero and justified because you are standing up for the discriminated and against the bigoted. Just remember that the bakers have no problem serving gay people. None.

 

I myself have never made the bakers out to be heroes. I don't need to. I am not saying they are without guilt here. I think they should have the right to say, "sorry, but no." By advocating for that right, it doesn't mean that I think they should be idolized.

[Mystery Meat]

I am also not convinced that Christ would bake the wedding cake. Christ didn't have a lot of tolerance for evil. Everyone wants to believe that Christ was all about warm and fuzzies and never said things that alienated people or offended them. But that is not the Christ we read about in scripture; it is that Christ we have imagined in our minds.

[Mystery Meat]

I am reminded of a position I stated once before. As long as the law is what it currently is and a business owner does not want to bake cakes, take picture, or provide flowers for a gay wedding I think I would agree to make the cake but inform them, just so they know, that they are morally opposed and don't feel good about making money on it. If the couple still insists I think the business owner should say, okay, but you still have to pay for the cake, flowers, photos, etc., I am just going to donate 100% of the proceeds to a new genetics project dedicated to finding the gay gene and finding a cure so parents can choose not to have gay children. That should do it.

 

But I think changing the law would be much simpler, cleaner and foster a great sense of tolerance.

[thesometimesaint]

It is doubtful Christ baked anyone a cake. Cakes as we know them are a 18th Century invention. Also TTBOMK he didn't say to the sinners when he preached to multitudes no bread or fishes for you.

Edited July 12, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Mystery Meat]

It is doubtful Christ baked anyone a cake. Cakes as we know them are a 18th Century invention. Also TTBOMK he didn't say to the sinners when he preached to multitudes no bread or fishes for you.

 

True. But none of them were demanding Him to provide wine and bread for a celebration commemorating their sin. That would be the appropriate comparison.

[california boy]

So too is villianizing the bakers for simply saying, no thanks, that violates our deeply held religious beliefs, and that was my point. Sorry you missed it. Yet, you are on a crusade; a crusade to publicly shame anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on this. I find that behavior so unchristlike and shameful. I have admitted many times that I am not sure I would act in the same way as this couple. I have even said they have done some things wrong. You can't even open your eyes and admit that the lesbian couple did anything wrong or see the anger, meanness, and ugliness in your own positios in this thread. I am sure you feel like a hero and justified because you are standing up for the discriminated and against the bigoted. Just remember that the bakers have no problem serving gay people. None.

 

I myself have never made the bakers out to be heroes. I don't need to. I am not saying they are without guilt here. I think they should have the right to say, "sorry, but no." By advocating for that right, it doesn't mean that I think they should be idolized.

you are absolutely right. I am on a crusade to shame people that use Christ to justify discrimination. I am on a crusade to not allow the excuse of religion to break the law and not suffer the consequences of those actions. I am on a crusade to shame those that think they can intimidate law abiding citizens from reporting illegal activity I am not ashamed to stand up for the teachings of Christ especially against those who pervert His teachings

Perhaps you can explain to me what the lesbian couple did that was wrong. Do you still think it is wrong to report someone that has broken the law to the authorities? Did they do ANYTHING else I should know about? Do you still think that Christ taught that we should disobey the law? Or that the gospel teaches us to not seek redress when someone has done something illegal towards us? You haven't really said.

[thesometimesaint]

 

It is doubtful Christ baked anyone a cake. Cakes as we know them are a 18th Century invention. Also TTBOMK he didn't say to the sinners when he preached to multitudes no bread or fishes for you.

 

True. But none of them were demanding Him to provide wine and bread for a celebration commemorating their sin. That would be the appropriate comparison.

 

 

At his wedding feast he didn't exclude sinners.

[california boy]

I am reminded of a position I stated once before. As long as the law is what it currently is and a business owner does not want to bake cakes, take picture, or provide flowers for a gay wedding I think I would agree to make the cake but inform them, just so they know, that they are morally opposed and don't feel good about making money on it. If the couple still insists I think the business owner should say, okay, but you still have to pay for the cake, flowers, photos, etc., I am just going to donate 100% of the proceeds to a new genetics project dedicated to finding the gay gene and finding a cure so parents can choose not to have gay children. That should do it.

But I think changing the law would be much simpler, cleaner and foster a great sense of tolerance.

Now this I could get totally behind. I think everyone has a constitutional right to express there closely held religious beliefs. They could have told this couple they were going to hell for getting married That is what religious rights are. There still may be public consequences but it wouldn't be liiegal or discriminatory. And since they owned the bakery they have a right to represent the bakery any way they want.

No law has to be broken. No discrimination has to occur. People would know exactly where they stand. I am not against standing up for religious beliefs. In fact I strongly support people making a stand for what they believe in. It is how these bakers made their stand that I am adamantly against.

There is no room for discrimination in this country because of race, religion, sex or gender orientation. And the more religion pushes for the right to discriminate the more backlash will take place against religion. Not many people in this country support discrimination. It gives religion a bad name.

Edited July 12, 2015 by california boy

[Stargazer]

At his wedding feast he didn't exclude sinners.

You know what a straw man is, right? And you don't think you just set one up?

The question is, would Christ help someone commemorate the commission of a sin?

And your response is, "he didn't exclude sinners."

You're not applying yourself to the actual matter at hand, but setting up a fake as if it were the question.

Christ freely forgave sinners who exhibited repentance, and healed them. He created fish and bread for a whole host of sinners, but it wasn't, as you seem to be suggesting, as a celebration of their sinfulness.

When he confronted the crowd who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery, he didn't try to shame the crowd for being so narrow-minded about the woman's right to have sex with someone not her husband, he shamed them for their hypocrisy. And then he admonished the woman to go her way and sin no more. He most certainly wasn't telling her to keep having sex in violation of the law.

Yet, when two persons come to ask for a service in commemoration of a sin, it's un-Christlike to refuse to participate?

The Jesus who drove the money changers out of the temple is not the Jesus who would bake a cake for a gay wedding -- and ha ha don't try to weasel out of it just because cakes weren't invented yet.

CB can be an activist for forcing people using the power of the State to do that which they find repugnant and in violation of their moral code, and that's his right. But trying to justify it on grounds of Christian doctrine and conduct places one of very shaky ground.

[Stargazer]

I am reminded of a position I stated once before. As long as the law is what it currently is and a business owner does not want to bake cakes, take picture, or provide flowers for a gay wedding I think I would agree to make the cake but inform them, just so they know, that they are morally opposed and don't feel good about making money on it. If the couple still insists I think the business owner should say, okay, but you still have to pay for the cake, flowers, photos, etc., I am just going to donate 100% of the proceeds to a new genetics project dedicated to finding the gay gene and finding a cure so parents can choose not to have gay children. That should do it.

But I think changing the law would be much simpler, cleaner and foster a great sense of tolerance.

Now this I could get totally behind. I think everyone has a constitutional right to express there closely held religious beliefs. They could have told this couple they were going to hell for getting married That is what religious rights are. There still may be public consequences but it wouldn't be liiegal or discriminatory. And since they owned the bakery they have a right to represent the bakery any way they want.

No law has to be broken. No discrimination has to occur. People would know exactly where they stand. I am not against standing up for religious beliefs. In fact I strongly support people making a stand for what they believe in. It is how these bakers made their stand that I am adamantly against.

There is no room for discrimination in this country because of race, religion, sex or gender orientation. And the more religion pushes for the right to discriminate the more backlash will take place against religion. Not many people in this country support discrimination. It gives religion a bad name.

So, they could have weaseled out of it by providing the cake and adding a note to the bottom of the receipt: "Lesbians will go to hell. Thanks for your patronage!"

I have to say, CB, that was funny. I'm still chuckling.

[why me]

 

you are absolutely right. I am on a crusade to shame people that use Christ to justify discrimination. I am on a crusade to not allow the excuse of religion to break the law and not suffer the consequences of those actions. I am on a crusade to shame those that think they can intimidate law abiding citizens from reporting illegal activity I am not ashamed to stand up for the teachings of Christ especially against those who pervert His teachings

 

I think that you are right since the united states has now entered into a post-christian era. The age of puritan influence is over. In a post-christian society most 'religious' inspired laws become absolete and they are replaced by moral relativism. For example, suddenly whatever was considered christian morals can be turned upside down and replaced by a more moral relative value system and be claimed as christian values.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2015 by why me

[why me]

I am also not convinced that Christ would bake the wedding cake. Christ didn't have a lot of tolerance for evil. Everyone wants to believe that Christ was all about warm and fuzzies and never said things that alienated people or offended them. But that is not the Christ we read about in scripture; it is that Christ we have imagined in our minds.

It is actually the more moral relative christ of a post-christian age. It is a christ that moral relativists claim to be all about love and as such would allow SSM and many other moral liberalisms under the guise of  christ is love understandings.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The Jesus who drove the money changers out of the temple is not the Jesus who would bake a cake for a gay wedding -- and ha ha don't try to weasel out of it just because cakes weren't invented yet.

 

It was the temple, not a business. I don't believe the event is accurately described in the NT. 

Jesus never denied service to anyone, he would bake a cake for a same sex couple. 

 

Edited July 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

If you want the perfect example of Christ like love for sinners see the woman taken in adultery. He quietly condemned her accusers, and told her to go her way and sin no more.

[ERayR]

If you want the perfect example of Christ like love for sinners see the woman taken in adultery. He quietly condemned her accusers, and told her to go her way and sin no more.

 

Do you think the bakers could have told the lesbian couple to go sin no more and this would have turned out any different?

[Storm Rider]

If you want the perfect example of Christ like love for sinners see the woman taken in adultery. He quietly condemned her accusers, and told her to go her way and sin no more.

 

It is that "sin no more" part that most want to ignore.  It is a condemnation of all sin.  It is an example of loving the sinner and rejecting the sin.  

 

Loving the sinner is willing to accept them "today" as they are while providing the hope of the gospel to those who sin and are without foundation.  It is difficult for some to draw a line between loving a sinner and supporting a sinner in their sin.  This appears to be a rather complex issue an individual could find themselves on either side.  It is not black and white.  What surprises me is that so many are comfortable with forcing a specific behavior on one party while completely rejecting any suggestion that they themselves should be forced to an alternative behavior to what they feel is right.  

[Stargazer]

The Jesus who drove the money changers out of the temple is not the Jesus who would bake a cake for a gay wedding -- and ha ha don't try to weasel out of it just because cakes weren't invented yet.

 

It was the temple, not a business. I don't believe the event is accurately described in the NT. 

Jesus never denied service to anyone, he would bake a cake for a same sex couple. 

 

Oh, yes, quote a non-believer as your authority. I love the irony. Note please that I have read a couple of Ehrman's books and I consider them useful and thought-provoking, but even Bart Ehrman is fallible. I don't trust him far enough to rely upon his authority in these matters.

So you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, who was required to remain sinless in order to serve as the final sacrifice, would condone and help celebrate sinful behavior. Interesting take, but I don't believe it for one moment.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Stargazer

[filovirus]

Marriage in the US is becoming a completely civic right, if it hasn't already become so. It is the voice of the people. Christians are trying to keep it a religious rite, but as deeply entrenched as it is now in our government, it will ultimately be a losing battle. Society has taken God out of marriage.

With all that in mind, my testimony continues to increase about temple sealings and God's wisdom to provide that ordinance to members of the church.

[california boy]

I say I if a gay couple shows up inside the temple to get married take a whip and beat them out of the temple

If a gay couple asks for a wedding cake give them their wedding cake, show as much love and kindness as Christ would and tell them to go their way and sin no more. If for added zeal call them to repentance and tell them they are going to hell. That should cover your responsibities as a Christian.

[why me]

I say I if a gay couple shows up inside the temple to get married take a whip and beat them out of the temple

If a gay couple asks for a wedding cake give them their wedding cake, show as much love and kindness as Christ would and tell them to go their way and sin no more. If for added zeal call them to repentance and tell them they are going to hell. That should cover your responsibities as a Christian.

I find it interesting that people can actually claim to know just how christ would react. We do have his reaction at the temple with the money changers. I saw no kindness and understanding there. Also, I saw no understanding with the couple who cheated on their tithe in the new testament. So, it is amazing that one can speak for christ and what he would do. We have very little of christ's life in the new testament and we have very little of his ministry. Lets face it, if the gospels contain all that christ did for those three years, he certainly had much free time.

 

And this is why I find what you say to be a little bogus. I do not think, from my reading of the bible, that christ was a moral relativist. Just the opposite. Also, if the bakery would tell the couple to sin no more, I do think that a lawsuit would be forthcoming too. It is not about sinning no more but about the very foundation of the family according to christian beliefs that have existed for two thousand years and to think that christians must get on board with the new paradigm or be ostracized, is quite unfair.

 

So, lets turn the table: Would christ put such a high fine on this baker? .You definitely should be against the fine because Jesus would not have put such a fine on this bakery. He just would have said, sin no more. Right?

Edited July 13, 2015 by why me

[TheSkepticChristian]

They were fined $130,000 for not wanting to provide a wedding cake for a SSM. $130,000. Wow. That is insane. Oregon just effectively put that couple out of business for trying to standup for their beliefs. $130,000....that is crazy. This world is messed up.

 

Conservative points 

1. protect businesses 

2. the government 

3. no regulations

4. the government 

5. businesses should have the right to discriminate 

6. the government 

7. religious freedom for businesses

8. the government 

 

 

So you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, who was required to remain sinless in order to serve as the final sacrifice, would condone and help celebrate sinful behavior. Interesting take, but I don't believe it for one moment.

 

Service is not a sin. Jesus was worried about the poor, Jesus was never worried about his religious freedom and the government. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian