Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close

desertcircus · 06-09-2013 12:56PM

A seemingly never-ending series of posts and yet no effort made to explain how this is different to a racist refusing to make a cake for an interracial wedding. When you go into business, you sign up to the rules that say you can't discriminate.

Seriously: can you explain how this is different to a mixed-race couple being refused service?

Ash.J.Williams · 06-09-2013 01:04PM

desertcircus wrote: »

A seemingly never-ending series of posts and yet no effort made to explain how this is different to a racist refusing to make a cake for an interracial wedding. When you go into business, you sign up to the rules that say you can't discriminate.

Seriously: can you explain how this is different to a mixed-race couple being refused service?

somewhere along the line in history somebody reckoned God was against gays...(when in fact he's not)

onefourreal · 06-09-2013 01:36PM

So much for businesses to reserve the right..

Why didn't the couple go elsewhere to order a cake?

Ash.J.Williams · 06-09-2013 01:40PM

onefourreal wrote: »

So much for businesses to reserve the right..

Why didn't the couple go elsewhere to order a cake?

put it into context. A native of the congo arrives in Dublin with his wife, and feels like a nice cake after a long flight. The cake shop owner refuses his custom, because he truely believes ireland has a moral obligation to close it's borders to Africans. You then expect the couple to go "ok...can you direct me to another cake shop please?"

(i would imagine they would feel deeply hurt)

onefourreal · 06-09-2013 01:45PM

No,The Bakers have one set of beliefs and the couple have another set of beliefs,leave it at that.
I would not want to insist on buying something from a shop who did not want to sell me something.

Delirium · 06-09-2013 01:51PM

onefourreal wrote: »

No,The Bakers have one set of beliefs and the couple have another set of beliefs,leave it at that.
I would not want to insist on buying something from a shop who did not want to sell me something.

You think it's okay for someone to be denied goods/services because they don't share the same beliefs as the business owner?

As pointed out already in this thread, it's that sort of thinking that would allow racists do the same to people not of the same race as them.

It's all well and good saying shop elsewhere if the person lives in a large urban area. But if they live in a small rural area where there isn't a second option, it's not really a helpful suggestion.

Ash.J.Williams · 06-09-2013 01:55PM

onefourreal wrote: »

No,The Bakers have one set of beliefs and the couple have another set of beliefs,leave it at that.
I would not want to insist on buying something from a shop who did not want to sell me something.

rossa parks had one set of beliefs and white america had another, should she have taken it on the chin and stayed in her designated seat?

joseph brand · 06-09-2013 02:18PM

It's amazing that there's even a debate on here as to the legitimacy of this couple's ignorant bigotry. They showed their hateful side, and it just doesn't go with cakes.

I bet the husband won't even touch a pink sponge.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa co-owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocates used "militant, mafia-style tactics" to shut down the business.

What is it with oppressed people getting so touchy and standing up for themselves? It certainly doesn't seem fair on the hatemongers.

I think I read somewhere that they had their very own version of French Fancies. They called them 'Fascist Fancies'. Amirite?

Finnbar01 · 06-09-2013 02:21PM

desertcircus wrote: »

A seemingly never-ending series of posts and yet no effort made to explain how this is different to a racist refusing to make a cake for an interracial wedding. When you go into business, you sign up to the rules that say you can't discriminate.

Seriously: can you explain how this is different to a mixed-race couple being refused service?

What if the Christian was black and the gay couple were black also, how would you then view this scenario?

People have a right to discriminate based on their beliefs or do you think it's alright for the state to use violence to ensure people never discriminate?

onefourreal · 06-09-2013 02:29PM

Rossa Parks was using a public Bus to take her from A to B. I am fairly sure there was no alternative Bus available.
This Couple had a choice to shop for a product elsewhere.

Delirium · 06-09-2013 02:33PM

onefourreal wrote: »

Rossa Parks was using a public Bus to take her from A to B. I am fairly sure there was no alternative Bus available.
This Couple had a choice to shop for a product elsewhere.

Rossa Parks was told to sit at the back of the bus as the front was for whites. There were empty seats at the back, she could have sat there. She chose not to. Are you suggesting that she should have moved to the back of the bus?

suchafunkymonke · 06-09-2013 02:36PM

Would the bakers have sold the same people a cake if it wasn't for a wedding e.g. a A lesbian birthday cake?

Was it a case of "We don't serve LGBT" or "we don't make LGBT wedding cakes"?

The Gay rights protestors took this too far. If you seriously want to change peoples views, threatening and harassing people isn't the way to do it.

But if you look at the bigger picture, it was just a cake. They should have just taken the money. Baking someone a cake because you're a baker and they're paying you doesn't affect your religion or your beliefs.

codie · 06-09-2013 02:42PM

The shop owners stood up for what they thought was right which is their democratic right.Same as a gay person standing up for their right to be gay.Just move on to the next baker .The immoral thing here is that the shop owners were forced out of business for standing up for their beliefs.

JimiTime · 06-09-2013 02:42PM

Morbert wrote: »

You are not following your own logic.

You said

By your logic, we could easily append "Some people find it morally acceptable to marry people outside of their race, some don't." to your list, which is exactly what mcmoustache was implying.

I find discrimination based on the gender combination of the people getting married to be just as reprehensible as discrimination based on the race combination of the people getting married. We can argue over whether there should be legislation against such discrimination, but they are absolutely analogous situations, and it is perfectly appropriate to draw a comparison. You cannot argue that it is ok to legislate against one but not the other.

In fact, the comparison is far more appropriate than your comparison with bestiality and paedophilia, as those do not involve consenting adults.

Unfortunately, I'm arguing with yours and others desire for this to be the case. So I'll try bring the light one more time.
You are still dealing with racism, and the view that peoples skin colour makes them inferior. Put it in the context of interracial marriage, and its still just racism based on a persons view that a persons skin colour makes them inferior. Sex is an action with moral implications. Being black, white, yellow, blue, purple etc has no moral implications at all. Sex is an action that does have moral implications. Outside of wedlock, adultery, same sex, sheep, anal, oral and on and on and on. The vast majority have objections to the action in certain contexts. Rather than this being in any way comparable to having a view that people of different skin colours being inferior, this is about our conflicting idea's of the context of the action of sex.

joseph brand · 06-09-2013 02:51PM

JimiTime wrote: »

acceptable to have sex with sheep,

JimiTime wrote: »

Outside of wedlock, adultery, same sex, sheep, anal, oral and on and on and on.

Why are you talking about sheep sex so often?

gaynorvader · 06-09-2013 02:53PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately, I'm arguing with yours and others desire for this to be the case. So I'll try bring the light one more time.
You are still dealing with racism, and the view that peoples skin colour makes them inferior. Put it in the context of interracial marriage, and its still just racism based on a persons view that a persons skin colour makes them inferior. Sex is an action with moral implications. Being black, white, yellow, blue, purple etc has no moral implications at all. Sex is an action that does have moral implications. Outside of wedlock, adultery, same sex, sheep, anal, oral and on and on and on. The vast majority have objections to the action in certain contexts. Rather than this being in any way comparable to having a view that people of different skin colours being inferior, this is about our conflicting idea's of the context of the action of sex.

We're talking about marriage here, not sex.

Delirium · 06-09-2013 02:56PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Unfortunately, I'm arguing with yours and others desire for this to be the case. So I'll try bring the light one more time.
You are still dealing with racism, and the view that peoples skin colour makes them inferior. Put it in the context of interracial marriage, and its still just racism based on a persons view that a persons skin colour makes them inferior. Sex is an action with moral implications. Being black, white, yellow, blue, purple etc has no moral implications at all. Sex is an action that does have moral implications. Outside of wedlock, adultery, same sex, sheep, anal, oral and on and on and on. The vast majority have objections to the action in certain contexts. Rather than this being in any way comparable to having a view that people of different skin colours being inferior, this is about our conflicting idea's of the context of the action of sex.

What has the couples sex life got to with buying a wedding cake? Does the cake seller do a moral background check on all couples before agreeing to make them a cake? Do the hetero couples get asked if they've engaged in pre-marital sex? I really doubt it.

JimiTime · 06-09-2013 02:57PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

We're talking about marriage here, not sex.

You cannot detatch the two.

gaynorvader · 06-09-2013 02:58PM

codie wrote: »

The shop owners stood up for what they thought was right which is their democratic right.Same as a gay person standing up for their right to be gay.Just move on to the next baker .The immoral thing here is that the shop owners were forced out of business for standing up for their beliefs.

There's nothing immoral if the shop owners were forced out of business due to their policy. They are allowed to hold this policy, that is their democratic right. It is not immoral to encourage people not to shop there due to this policy. It would be immoral to threaten with physical harm, which I think someone was accused of at some point. Boycotting is not immoral.

gaynorvader · 06-09-2013 02:59PM

JimiTime wrote: »

You cannot detatch the two.

I can, quite easily in fact. I think it's actually you who are unable to. People have sex in and out of wedlock, the two have nothing to do with one another save that some people prefer to wait for marriage before engaging, which is perfectly fine.

JimiTime · 06-09-2013 03:00PM

joseph brand wrote: »

Why are you talking about sheep sex so often?

Because it accentuates that we all have issues with the action of sex in certain contexts. It quashes the myth that having moral issues with sex in certain contexts is akin to believing someones skin colour makes them inferior.

Larbre34 · 06-09-2013 03:01PM

Aaron Klein is a Christian?!

drumswan · 06-09-2013 03:05PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Because it accentuates that we all have issues with the action of sex in certain contexts. It quashes the myth that having moral issues with sex in certain contexts is akin to believing someones skin colour makes them inferior.

Many people have no issue with consensual sex between adults. Are we headed to the age old christian position of homosexuals being akin to paedophile rapists?

JimiTime · 06-09-2013 03:14PM

koth wrote: »

What has the couples sex life got to with buying a wedding cake? Does the cake seller do a moral background check on all couples before agreeing to make them a cake? Do the hetero couples get asked if they've engaged in pre-marital sex? I really doubt it.

If the hetero couple asked for a cake to celebrate their sex outside of marriage, I'm sure the shop would have objected to that too. This is not an issue of hating homosexuals. This is an issue of a couple of Christians not wanting to be a part of something they have a moral objection to, i.e. a homosexual union. They sound like they are tolerant, and dont have any objection to serving homosexuals etc. However, they felt that making a cake for their wedding would make them involved in the event, and be an implicit approval of it. So they felt, that they had to decline making the cake. Unfortunately, the activists were not so tolerant.

JimiTime · 06-09-2013 03:16PM

drumswan wrote: »

Many people have no issue with consensual sex between adults. Are we headed to the age old christian position of homosexuals being akin to paedophile rapists?

No, we are dealing with the oft touted silly position that having the view that a persons skin colour makes them inferior to you is comparable to having moral issues with sex in certain contexts.

gaynorvader · 06-09-2013 03:20PM

JimiTime wrote: »

If the hetero couple asked for a cake to celebrate their sex outside of marriage, I'm sure the shop would have objected to that too. This is not an issue of hating homosexuals. This is an issue of a couple of Christians not wanting to be a part of something they have a moral objection to, i.e. a homosexual union. They sound like they are tolerant, and dont have any objection to serving homosexuals etc. However, they felt that making a cake for their wedding would make them involved in the event, and be an implicit approval of it. So they felt, that they had to decline making the cake. Unfortunately, the activists were not so tolerant.

The activists just wanted to make sure that they would sell cakes to homosexuals who weren't getting married. Unfortunately the Christian couple refused and led to these unfortunate events. I'm sure if the shop just sold a cake to another homosexual couple, that would have been fine and everyone would have been happy.

See? I can make stuff up too!

Days 298 · 06-09-2013 03:21PM

JimiTime wrote: »

No, we are dealing with the oft touted silly position that having the view that a persons skin colour makes them inferior to you is comparable to having moral issues with sex in certain contexts.

Ninja edit

Edit: Racism is comparable to homophobia just to let you know. In the 60's people thought racism(segregation) was okay to some. Some tried to defend it.

This manager didn't want blacks in his whites only swimming pool. So he poured in acid. Now the very idea would be crazy. In the same way the boycott shows people don't accept it anymore. They don't have to.

Intolerance should never be tolerated no matter how small.

Delirium · 06-09-2013 03:21PM

JimiTime wrote: »

If the hetero couple asked for a cake to celebrate their sex outside of marriage, I'm sure the shop would have objected to that too. This is not an issue of hating homosexuals. This is an issue of a couple of Christians not wanting to be a part of something they have a moral objection to, i.e. a homosexual union. They sound like they are tolerant, and dont have any objection to serving homosexuals etc. However, they felt that making a cake for their wedding would make them involved in the event, and be an implicit approval of it. So they felt, that they had to decline making the cake. Unfortunately, the activists were not so tolerant.

The same-sex couple asked for a wedding cake, not a "we'll be having lots of sex" cake.

Anyways, the cake shop denied them the cake because same-sex marriage is not in line with their beliefs or they believe marriage is a man and a woman.

As Christians, pre-martial sex is most likely against their beliefs too. Yet they would potentially make a cake to celebrate the marriage of a couple that have been engaged in immoral behaviour? Seems hypocritical to me.

Corkfeen · 06-09-2013 03:23PM

codie wrote: »

The shop owners stood up for what they thought was right which is their democratic right.Same as a gay person standing up for their right to be gay.Just move on to the next baker .The immoral thing here is that the shop owners were forced out of business for standing up for their beliefs.

Okay, so a business views interracial marriage to be immoral. An interracial couple want a cake made. It is that couple's democratic right to report them for discrimination if they refuse to serve because it goes against their moral stance . It is also their right to encourage a boycott and contact associated businesses. This is how boycotts normally work, it can force a person out of business but when they allow such a situation to develop, there will be consequences.

Just because you think it's their legal right to exercise their homophobia. It remains a factually untrue statement.

joseph brand · 06-09-2013 03:25PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Because it accentuates that we all have issues with the action of sex in certain contexts. It quashes the myth that having moral issues with sex in certain contexts is akin to believing someones skin colour makes them inferior.

You're using bestiality to differentiate between racism and homophobia? Okaaay. My impression from reading your posts, is that you're trying to equate homosexuality with bestiality. They're both 'odd', since god created 'Adam & Eve', not 'Adam & Steve', or 'Adam and Rover'.

99.9999% of humans are repulsed by bestiality, which we didn't learn through scripture or mass, it's naturally revolting and wrong. On the other hand, there are plenty of folks who have no other reason to hate LGBT's other than the fact that, contempt and hatred was drilled into them by their religion.

It's funny isn't it, that gay children are born to straight parents. Why does god keep making gays?

Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close

Comments