USU78 Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: Not with a stranger baking a cake. If so, then why compel the stranger against his will to participate in the proceedings to the extent of baking the cake? Why this stranger? Why this cake? The point of the whole exercise is compulsion for its own sake: the childish tantruming that ensues, with all of the handwringing and declarations of horror at having been denied this cake by this stranger, makes this clear. And nobody is standing up for the poor schmuck of a baker: They came for the baker; then they came for me 2
rockpond Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, USU78 said: When does the rite begin? The haymaker who provides fodder for the Paschal Lamb after it is weaned and the herdsman who maintains the herd and cherishes, feeds and cares for it are just as much a part of the Paschal sacrifice as the priest with the knife, tinder, and coals. The cake is sine qua non of the wedding rite as much as the rings and the padre. The herdsman is the baker; the haymaker is the baker: compelling the baker's participation in the obscene rite is barbarous. Couples can, and often do, get married without a cake. It has no impact on the religious rite. I think calling it barbarous is a bit of a stretch. But I do think it is dumb to compel a baker to bake a cake for someone. 1
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 53 minutes ago, california boy said: Sorry, we don't live in a theocracy. Every single law including the constitution of the United States can be changed. That is how this country works. There are other countries were religion does trump clvil law. You have options. I reject your expression of sorrow that we do not live in a theocracy. I believe you really don't want to. And I believe that you and other such men as yourself are taking advantage of the legal system in our country by enacting laws that uphold unrighteous behavior. Laws that uphold same sex marriage and reject any display of rejection to same. I, on the other hand, would much rather live in a society that is governed by God's laws than the fallible and often evil laws of other less than such holy men as he is. And I show my desire to live by his laws even in the midst of such men as yourself. Men like yourself that uphold same sex marriage and even same sex sexual relations outside of any legal marriage while rejecting any display of rejection to same. Each of us shows whose laws we would rather follow by the laws that we actually live by, with our beliefs reflecting the type of people we are. 1
USU78 Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Couples can, and often do, get married without a cake. It has no impact on the religious rite. I think calling it barbarous is a bit of a stretch. But I do think it is dumb to compel a baker to bake a cake for someone. If it has no impact, then why get so upset when the baker refuses to bake it? What's the point? Edited April 14, 2016 by USU78 type too fast for keyboard to keep up 1
rockpond Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 1 minute ago, USU78 said: If it has no impact, when get so upset when the baker refuses to bake it? What's the point? Why would the gay couple get upset? Because they feel discriminated against. Because, right or wrong, they HAVE been discriminated against. And since we, as Latter-day Saints have been counseled to reach out in love and understanding, it seems to me that we ought to just bake the cake. 2
Anijen Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 18 minutes ago, rockpond said: The baker isn't being asked to greet the wedding party, toast the brides/grooms, wear the dress, pray over the cake, give a gift, or throw the bouquet. The baker is just doing what the baker does -- baking a cake. Not just a plain old cake (you love moving the goal post to just a cake). It is a wedding cake for a SS couple, this goes against his religious beliefs and he is forced to do so. A driver is doing just what a driver does--drive, but does that give a specialty driver such as a race car driver the legal right to speed on our streets? Why not? Why discriminate against him. A painter is just a painter-- he paints, so lets force him to paint obscene murals. If he refuses he is discriminating. A missionary is just doing what he does--preach. So lets force him to preach us a sermon on SS marriage, even though it is against his religion (the law says he cant discriminate). Rockpond, you have to make it only a cake a normal cake then you have a good argument. In fact the baker actually said he would do what bakers do and offered to make the SS couple a cake, but they said no it had to be their wedding cake and he wouldn't do it because of his religious beliefs. It wasn't just a cake. 1
USU78 Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 1 minute ago, rockpond said: Why would the gay couple get upset? Because they feel discriminated against. Because, right or wrong, they HAVE been discriminated against. And since we, as Latter-day Saints have been counseled to reach out in love and understanding, it seems to me that we ought to just bake the cake. I'm unaware of any pronouncement in scripture or over the pulpit that compels me to participate in any way at any stage in an obscene rite. Indeed, we are counseled to stand up for our beliefs, like little JFSmith, and proclaim our Mormonness even at the peril of our lives. We teach our children to be witnesses "at all times and in all things and in all places." This is that time. These are those things. These are those places. 1
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: Why would the gay couple get upset? Because they feel discriminated against. Because, right or wrong, they HAVE been discriminated against. And since we, as Latter-day Saints have been counseled to reach out in love and understanding, it seems to me that we ought to just bake the cake. Perhaps if we could somehow separate the act of baking the cake from any other consideration, maybe we could then just bake the stupid cake. And maybe it would help if the person(s) asking for the stupid cake did not mention what it is for, and also not mention that they are gay, if they are. People are usually pretty smart, though, even cake bakers, and can easily associate one thing with another, often thinking of things they do not agree with. 1
Anijen Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 17 minutes ago, Ahab said: I reject your expression of sorrow that we do not live in a theocracy. I believe you really don't want to. And I believe that you and other such men as yourself are taking advantage of the legal system in our country by enacting laws that uphold unrighteous behavior. Laws that uphold same sex marriage and reject any display of rejection to same. I, on the other hand, would much rather live in a society that is governed by God's laws than the fallible and often evil laws of other less than such holy men as he is. And I show my desire to live by his laws even in the midst of such men as yourself. Men like yourself that uphold same sex marriage and even same sex sexual relations outside of any legal marriage while rejecting any display of rejection to same. Each of us shows whose laws we would rather follow by the laws that we actually live by, with our beliefs reflecting the type of people we are. I would be willing to give every reputation point I have to this post. 1
rockpond Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, Anijen said: Not just a plain old cake (you love moving the goal post to just a cake). It is a wedding cake for a SS couple, this goes against his religious beliefs and he is forced to do so. A driver is doing just what a driver does--drive, but does that give a specialty driver such as a race car driver the legal right to speed on our streets? Why not? Why discriminate against him. A painter is just a painter-- he paints, so lets force him to paint obscene murals. If he refuses he is discriminating. A missionary is just doing what he does--preach. So lets force him to preach us a sermon on SS marriage, even though it is against his religion (the law says he cant discriminate). Rockpond, you have to make it only a cake a normal cake then you have a good argument. In fact the baker actually said he would do what bakers do and offered to make the SS couple a cake, but they said no it had to be their wedding cake and he wouldn't do it because of his religious beliefs. It wasn't just a cake. No, I don't have to make it a "normal cake" and your comparisons are absurd. How does baking a wedding cake for a same sex couple go against a baker's religious beliefs? (I'm not talking about being forced to do something, I've already said I am opposed to that, I'm asking how is it an issue of religious freedom for a baker who bakes wedding cakes?) Please be specific.
rockpond Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, USU78 said: I'm unaware of any pronouncement in scripture or over the pulpit that compels me to participate in any way at any stage in an obscene rite. Indeed, we are counseled to stand up for our beliefs, like little JFSmith, and proclaim our Mormonness even at the peril of our lives. We teach our children to be witnesses "at all times and in all things and in all places." This is that time. These are those things. These are those places. Baking a cake isn't participating in the wedding rite. It is baking a cake. 2
USU78 Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: Baking a cake isn't participating in the wedding rite. It is baking a cake. If it's just a cake, why get mad if somebody doesn't want to bake it for you for the use you want to put it to? I answer my own question: because the bully wants to make himself feel better by destroying somebody else's life. Bakers and bakeries are fungible commodities: there's always another one down the road. But if I can set up a Christian baker to refuse participation in my obscene rite, then I get the glorious pleasure of watching him go out of business, while I get to count money ... all for the low low price of whining loudly. What a deal! 2
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, rockpond said: Baking a cake isn't participating in the wedding rite. It is baking a cake. Say that again but call it a wedding cake the next time you say it. I double dog dare you. 1
Gray Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: Say that again but call it a wedding cake the next time you say it. I double dog dare you. Baking a wedding cake isn't a religious rite. It's refreshments. If you were talking about preparing the sacrament, you might have a point. Edited April 14, 2016 by Gray
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Baking a wedding cake isn't a religious rite. It's refreshments. If you were talking about preparing the sacrament, you might have a point. You left out the word "participating". And yes the wedding cake is just as much a part of any wedding where a wedding cake is used as the sacrament emblems are part of the sacrament that uses them. Nice analogy there. 1
ALarson Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Why this stranger? Why this cake? Because he's a baker who is open to the public and makes all types of cakes and sells them. Why would you believe that is part of a wedding rite? And, no one is forcing him to be a baker.
Gray Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 25 minutes ago, Ahab said: You left out the word "participating". And yes the wedding cake is just as much a part of any wedding where a wedding cake is used as the sacrament emblems are part of the sacrament that uses them. Nice analogy there. This is news to me. But I find all kinds of novel ideas are created in these debates. Wedding cake as sacramental emblem. Sames goes for the appetizers? Of course there are all kinds of products that could be put to use at a gay wedding - shoes, lighting, floor wax, tables, chairs, textiles, plastic cutlery, Sterno cans.... the list is endless. Perhaps vendors of all these products should be granted religious exemption to selling them to whichever class of customer they have a beef with.
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 18 minutes ago, Gray said: This is news to me. But I find all kinds of novel ideas are created in these debates. Wedding cake as sacramental emblem. Sames goes for the appetizers? Of course there are all kinds of products that could be put to use at a gay wedding - shoes, lighting, floor wax, tables, chairs, textiles, plastic cutlery, Sterno cans.... the list is endless. Perhaps vendors of all these products should be granted religious exemption to selling them to whichever class of customer they have a beef with. I think knowledge that wedding cakes are used as part of a wedding ceremony is one of the key factors here. As I said in another post, sans that knowledge, the baker most likely would not have a problem with what kind of a wedding his wedding cakes were used for because the baker just wouldn't know. It's not sacrilege to use the same loaf of bread sacrament emblems come from to make sandwiches or toast, either, you know. It's only when you know that particular slices of bread are going to be used for sacrament emblems that the bread starts to take on any religious significance. But sure go ahead and think of everything as a sacred emblem used only for sacred things as much as you want to. 1
mtomm Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) So if I'm opposed to gay marriages how am I going to keep gay people from buying the veils, garters, rings, "something blue," invitations and thank you notes that I make? When I ship them to my resellers can I add a little label that says "Not for sale to gay people and cannot be used for gay weddings?" Should I be upset when resellers aren't interested in my products? Am I now being forced out of work because of my religious beliefs? How come companies no longer want to do business with me? Should I be forced to produce my hand-crafted products for just anyone? I don't want it to seem like my brand Holy Weddings is endorsing gay marriage! Edited April 14, 2016 by mtomm 2
Gray Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think knowledge that wedding cakes are used as part of a wedding ceremony is one of the key factors here. As I said in another post, sans that knowledge, the baker most likely would not have a problem with what kind of a wedding his wedding cakes were used for because the baker just wouldn't know. It's not sacrilege to use the same loaf of bread sacrament emblems come from to make sandwiches or toast, either, you know. It's only when you know that particular slices of bread are going to be used for sacrament emblems that the bread starts to take on any religious significance. But sure go ahead and think of everything as a sacred emblem used only for sacred things as much as you want to. I've attended several weddings, LDS and non-LDS, and of course seen many dramatizations on TV. I have yet to see one where the cake played a part in the wedding ceremony.
Jeanne Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 37 minutes ago, Gray said: This is news to me. But I find all kinds of novel ideas are created in these debates. Wedding cake as sacramental emblem. Sames goes for the appetizers? Of course there are all kinds of products that could be put to use at a gay wedding - shoes, lighting, floor wax, tables, chairs, textiles, plastic cutlery, Sterno cans.... the list is endless. Perhaps vendors of all these products should be granted religious exemption to selling them to whichever class of customer they have a beef with. I have to say I have done many cakes..have done dozen of doughnuts for schools and parties..and haven't been invited to a single event. 1
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 10 minutes ago, Gray said: I've attended several weddings, LDS and non-LDS, and of course seen many dramatizations on TV. I have yet to see one where the cake played a part in the wedding ceremony. Then I suspect that in your mind the wedding cake is not a part of the wedding ceremony. Perhaps you think the entire ceremony is over when both parties say "I do" or when the officiator pronounces them both as husband and wife... or husband and husband, or wife and wife, or whatever. But some other people, who don't think as you do, don't think the ceremony is over at that point. Some think of the cutting of the wedding cake as part of the wedding ceremony, maybe even up to the part when people throw rice at the married couple. I've been talking about bakers who consider the wedding cake as a part of the wedding ceremony when they are used.
ttribe Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: I've been talking about bakers who consider the wedding cake as a part of the wedding ceremony when they are used. Does such a person even exist?
USU78 Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 57 minutes ago, ALarson said: Because he's a baker who is open to the public and makes all types of cakes and sells them. Why would you believe that is part of a wedding rite? And, no one is forcing him to be a baker. Gentleman that I am, I shall cease repeating myself beyond: "If it ain't part of the rite, why make such a fuss?" Have at it.
Ahab Posted April 14, 2016 Posted April 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, ttribe said: Does such a person even exist? For the purposes of our discussion let's just talk as if they do exist. Or as if they did exist before particular laws forced them out of business.
Recommended Posts