Support NeoGAF

[llien]

But that doesn't mean someone can wear a "no fat chicks" trucker hat to work, and claim it's part of their religion.

Challenge accepted.

 

[Bolivar687]

The courts are saying nobody in this country has to bake a wedding cake for any interracial marriages based on their religious beliefs.

If you haven't read what this ruling is about, or you have and you're just determined to lie about it, it might be for the best if you abstained from the conversation.

 

[Airola]

Are you arguing that being homosexual, engaging in sexual acts with people of your sex, is not a sin from Christian POV?

No, I'm not.
Well, being homosexual isn't a sin but the sexual acts are.

It's not about people not being saint, but about the very act, for which cake is being made, being a sin and hence, the baker taking part of it, endorsing it.

Non-homosexual analogy would be asking him to make a, say, sex orgy cake, for, well, a sex orgy.
Wait, that's not spicy enough: a sex orgy with incest.

I think he would refuse to bake a cake for a sex orgy. He wouldn't be opposed to bake a cake for people who participate in orgies but he would refuse to bake a cake for an orgy.

He would bake a cake for a sinner, but wouldn't bake a cake to celebrate a ceremony that goes against his religious beliefs.

The thing the baker doesn't want to endorse is the thought of marriage being about something else than a male and a female becoming one. He wouldn't bake a cake for a wedding of a man and a guitar either even if the man wouldn't do anything that the baker might consider that is sinful afterwards. He would bake a cake for a man who loves his guitar. He just wouldn't bake a ceremonial cake for a sacramental ceremony where the point of the sacrament is completely lost.

 

[mckmas8808]

No, they're not. That's not a religious belief you can find anywhere in the Bible. Marriage being a holy union between a man and a woman united before God is definitely found in the Bible. It doesn't say anything about race.

There has to be an historical religious precedent, or religious freedom doesn't make any sense. For example, businesses may try to avoid a religious discrimination lawsuit by allowing certain religions exemptions from aspects of their dress code. But that doesn't mean someone can wear a "no fat chicks" trucker hat to work, and claim it's part of their religion.

Interestingly enough, some people were even exempt from social security cards when those started up, because they could prove that it violated their religious beliefs. You can't just make shit up as you go along. For example:

There were people that used to make that terrible argument years ago. But what about this within the Bible....

1 Corinthians 7:39 New International Version (NIV)

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

A Christian woman marrying a Muslim man. The Baker can obviously refuse to make them a wedding cake right?

1 Thessalonians 4:3 English Standard Version (ESV)

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification:[a] that you abstain from sexual immorality;

A man and a woman that have been living together for 2 years before marriage decides to buy a wedding cake from this baker now that they are engaged. He can refuse to do it now, since they would have been committing sexual immorality more than likely right?

The thing the baker doesn't want to endorse is the thought of marriage being about something else than a male and a female becoming one. He wouldn't bake a cake for a wedding of a man and a guitar either even if the man wouldn't do anything that the baker might consider that is sinful afterwards. He would bake a cake for a man who loves his guitar. He just wouldn't bake a ceremonial cake for a sacramental ceremony where the point of the sacrament is completely lost.

Let not compare one thing to a man marrying a guitar. We are talking about humans here.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

It's somewhat ironic that you would say something this hateful about religion while using a Prince avatar.

Is it?

They went on social media leading a vile social media mob and activists to this person.

You got links? Or did they just go on social media with their story and the internet did what the internet does?

Also
http://edmontonbikes.ca/services/bikeworks/women-transgender-program/
Even if men have an emergency with their bike they are getting send away.

Wait, lets back up here for a sec. What's ladies night, and a 2-3 time a month bicycle thing gotta to with one dude making NO CAKES for gay weddings.

 

[Dunki]

Is it?


You got links? Or did they just go on social media with their story and the internet did what the internet does?

Wait, lets back up here for a sec. What's ladies night, and a 2-3 time a month bicycle thing gotta to with one dude making NO CAKES for gay weddings.

The internet does what the internet does excuse did not work with gamergate why should it work here? You can not expect to say something vile on the internet and then be surprised how even more vile people react. They were the cause of thesse threats.

And for your other question. I call both discrimination and it one is ok the other is ok too. As I said before as non religious person I only side with the bakery because they do not seem like assholes unlike the couple IMO. Otherwise I do not know how I would rule this. Both are proteted groups so in all honesty I would not go to this bakery if I think they have treated me unfairly. If they do not want my money someone else wants.

 

[Airola]

Let not compare one thing to a man marrying a guitar. We are talking about humans here.

Why not?


Sure, that might've been a joke or a publicity stunt of some sort, who knows, but still that's something I think a religious person shouldn't have to endorse if they feel it goes against what their understanding of a Biblical marriage is.

There are people who have been wed with inanimate object, not legally binding of course.
http://listverse.com/2018/01/14/10-people-who-married-inanimate-objects/
This is a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

What I'm saying is that Biblical marriage is quite a clear thing. Not that a believer couldn't approve marriages that go against that or that a believer couldn't believe the Bible doesn't say that, but a religious person who says a Biblical marriage is a male and a female being brought together as one in a holy sacrament is on a pretty solid ground if someone wants to argue with him about it.

In these cases with inanimate objects the argument wouldn't be that being in love with an object is sinful but that this isn't what marriage is in their view and they don't want to celebrate and endorse a ceremony that is against their religious belief. It's one thing to provide goods and services to people who are not of the same religion or who are sinners, but it's a whole another thing to take active part in a thing that changes a holy sacrament of that religion.

One more time: A Biblical marriage is not about two persons who are in love and them being brought together. Sure, there could be other forms of marriages in other religions (or outside of religion) that have allowed anything and everything, but a Biblical marriage has always been about a male and a female. At some point a thought of "a man and a woman being in love and getting married" began to focus solely on the "love" part of the thought and basically ignored the man and a woman part of it. In a Biblical sense no matter how much people love each other and it doesn't matter if it happens in a church or if there is a priest involved, it is not a marriage if it doesn't involve a man and a woman. It's not about sinners as every single marriage involves two sinners. You can't find anyone that gets married who hasn't ever sinned or who doesn't sin ever again. It's about what the Biblical definition of marriage is when the context is a Christian who refused to give his part to that ceremony. You can object to that as much as you want and even say it's evil to think like that, but that's how it is and if you want to let people have religious freedoms you have to accept the baker to opt out from that.

If the couple can find a church and a priest who will wed them and find a baker who will bake a cake for the ceremony, good for them. But the baker, or the priest, who doesn't want to be part of that have their right to go along their religious conscience.

 

[manfestival]

Challenge accepted.

Since FSM is known entirely for being a mockery. It wouldn't be accepted for obvious reasons.

 

[mckmas8808]

One more time: A Biblical marriage is not about two persons who are in love and them being brought together. Sure, there could be other forms of marriages in other religions (or outside of religion) that have allowed anything and everything, but a Biblical marriage has always been about a male and a female. At some point a thought of "a man and a woman being in love and getting married" began to focus solely on the "love" part of the thought and basically ignored the man and a woman part of it. In a Biblical sense no matter how much people love each other and it doesn't matter if it happens in a church or if there is a priest involved, it is not a marriage if it doesn't involve a man and a woman. It's not about sinners as every single marriage involves two sinners. You can't find anyone that gets married who hasn't ever sinned or who doesn't sin ever again. It's about what the Biblical definition of marriage is when the context is a Christian who refused to give his part to that ceremony. You can object to that as much as you want and even say it's evil to think like that, but that's how it is and if you want to let people have religious freedoms you have to accept the baker to opt out from that.

If the couple can find a church and a priest who will wed them and find a baker who will bake a cake for the ceremony, good for them. But the baker, or the priest, who doesn't want to be part of that have their right to go along their religious conscience.

See the thing is a bibically accepted marriage is more than just "a man" and "a woman". There are many criteria through which God would not approve of such a marriage. Being gay isn't the start and end of that. My point is when will it be recognized that there are many other criteria that are as important as the one you are talking about?

 

[Cato]

A Christian woman marrying a Muslim man. The Baker can obviously refuse to make them a wedding cake right?

If you are saying that some fundamental christian sects forbid inter-faith marriages, I didn't know that that was a thing anymore but I
can accept that they could exist. There are very backward fundamental christian sects.

What also does exist is that many religious muslim bakers would most definitely also refuse to bake a cake in this scenario.


I think the ruling is good. No baker, christian, muslim or any other faith should have to innocently become a weapon or target
in some SJW or other hate campaign due to their beliefs.

(SJW campaign: lets go after the gay-hating white christian baker because "woke".
Other hate campaign: Stormfront folks using the ruling to go after the muslim bakers en masse. This would happen.
)

 

[Airola]

See the thing is a bibically accepted marriage is more than just "a man" and "a woman". There are many criteria through which God would not approve of such a marriage. Being gay isn't the start and end of that. My point is when will it be recognized that there are many other criteria that are as important as the one you are talking about?

I understand what you mean. There would be way less divorced people if all Christians would have a divorce only in situations the Bible allows it. And sure, there are male-female weddings done that go against the rules too.

Still, there is a difference between what the definition of Biblical marriage is and who are being able to get married. Even in the situation what you quoted above ("A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.") marriage still is a thing between a man and a woman. It doesn't say it's not a marriage if a widow marries someone else than a fellow believer. It just prohibits a widow to enter such a marriage. With male-male or female-female marriages it really isn't a marriage in the first place (in a Biblical sense).

That said, that quote is part of a chapter where it is specifically said that not all of what's said there are commands from God. In one place the writer, Paul, says "not I, but the Lord" when it's a command from God and "I, not the Lord" when it's not a command from God but Paul's personal guidance. In other place he says "I say this as a concession, not as a command" and in another "I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy" and again "I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord." The context for that letter seems to be whatever was happening at the time of writing at Corinth. "Because of the present crisis..." points to a crisis of some sort. Probably concerning of sexual immorality within the church of Corinth. So essentially the believing widow having to belong to the Lord is about Paul guiding how a believer can stay devoted to God better in whatever crisis was happening there. In fact the next verse says "In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God" which clearly implies this is Paul's own judgment and guidance to the Corinthians in their time of crisis, not a direct command from God. He calls it his personal judgment and thinks in his way the widow would be happier, but he thinks he knows what he's talking about and what he says is good as he has the Spirit of God. Still, it's his personal judgment, not to restrict them, but for their own good.

Paul also allows a believer to be married with an unbeliever, but says a believer must not divorce their unbeliever wife/husband but allows the unbeliever to divorce the believing wife/husband. There's quite a bit of all kinds of context to mirror the verses with in that chapter.

However, I think that if a Christian sincerely believes that those separate verses are supposed to be direct command from God and what God wants and that it's not directed at the Corinthians at that point in time but directed to all of us anywhere and anytime, I think they should be able to follow their religious conscience and, if they know a believing widow wants to marry an unbeliever or a believer of different religion, they should have their right to opt out from being part of that. They at least have the Pauline doctrines sent to the Corinthias to back them up even if it really wasn't something that was supposed to be for all of us. This isn't how I would see it but I can understand where they are coming from.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Challenge accepted.

Without reading that entire article, that at a glance seems to have nothing to do with what I was talking about, is there something there about someone making up their own religion specifically to violate the policy of their workplace, and the united states government allowing them to do so? Because that's what I'm talking about, and what the video I linked to was suggesting wouldn't be allowed.

*edit* Unless your reply was meant to be purely humorous, in which case, sorry I took you so seriously.

A Christian woman marrying a Muslim man. The Baker can obviously refuse to make them a wedding cake right?

Before answering your question, and I will, let me ask one of my own. What is the difference between a privately owned bakery saying no to making a cake for a gay wedding, a Christian or Muslim house of worship refusing to marry a gay couple, or a Christian or Muslim house of worship refusing to marry the Christian and Muslim couple you described above?

Why should this form of discrimination be illegal in a privately owned business, but legal when it comes to where the marriage itself will take place? If we're talking slippery slope here, what specific argument protects the right of religions to practice their faith as they see fit in their own place of worship, but does not protect that right in their own businesses? What logical assurance to you have for Christians and Muslims that they should just go along with the cakes and flowers thing, and that will be the end of it?

And maybe you already guessed this, but yes, as long as they were able to cite an historical religious precedent, I'd want the speech of the baker to not be compelled in any way that he or she felt was at odds with their faith. And again, I only feel this way for people who own their business. Anyone else can and likely should be fired for violating company policy.

A man and a woman that have been living together for 2 years before marriage decides to buy a wedding cake from this baker now that they are engaged. He can refuse to do it now, since they would have been committing sexual immorality more than likely right?

Same as above.

 

[Gold_Loot]

You can ask nearly any Catholic priest, and they’ll basically all tell you that they will not Marry a man and a woman if they are not both Catholic.

The pastor out our church almost didn’t marry me and my wife since we were living together before hand.

It happens.

 

[WaterAstro]

You can ask nearly any Catholic priest, and they’ll basically all tell you that they will not Marry a man and a woman if they are not both Catholic.

The pastor out our church almost didn’t marry me and my wife since we were living together before hand.

It happens.

Nope, that's not quite right. It's still possible.

A Catholic can marry a non-Catholic on the condition that the non-Catholic is taught about Catholicism, the children are born Catholic, and that the non-Catholic won't be making the Catholic renounce his/her faith. A Catholic authority must also approve of the union after overseeing that the non-Catholic has understood these conditions.

 

[Bolivar687]

You can ask nearly any Catholic priest, and they’ll basically all tell you that they will not Marry a man and a woman if they are not both Catholic.

This is such a bold and incredible lie.

Around 25% of American Catholics are in inter-faith marraiges. Ecumenical marriages are incredibly common and their rules are very well settled. The procedures for marriages to non-Christians are likewise well established and permissive. Pope Francis' signature encyclical, Amoris Laetitia, called interfaith marriages a wonderful opportunity for Catholics to facilitate inter-faith dialogue. I called many priests for my interfaith wedding last year and every one of them went out of their way to talk me down from my concerns about not having a sacramental marriage.

The attempt on this page to trivialize homosexuality as merely one among many disqualifications for Christian marriage is intellectually disingenous. You're both either misquoting scripture (1 Corinthians 7 discusses interfaith marriage at lines 12-14), or lying about the catechism to do it.

Indeed, dishonesty characterizes the entirety of the backlash to the outcome. This case was never about discrimination against sexual orientation, and the factual record described in the Supreme Court opinion has decisively removed this mischaracterization from the discussion (Page 28: "Mr. Phillips offered to make other baked goods for the couple, including cakes celebrating other occasions"). Freedom of religion is the very first civil liberty enshrined in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights; from many angles, it's the only reason why the United States came to exist in the first place. The framework of our republic recognizes that religious belief is not just another subjective opinion. If you have a deep objection to that reality, then you should either start the process of amending our Constitution, or you should probably try to find a country that more closely aligns with your sensibilities.

 

[llien]

Since FSM is known entirely for being a mockery. It wouldn't be accepted for obvious reasons.

Fair enough.

 

[Greedings]

You can ask nearly any Catholic priest, and they’ll basically all tell you that they will not Marry a man and a woman if they are not both Catholic.

The pastor out our church almost didn’t marry me and my wife since we were living together before hand.

It happens.

Yeah...that's not true. My wife and I got married in a catholic church. She had to convert from greek to roman catholic to do so, but I remained without a religion. No problem as long as one person was catholic.
I'm not a one-off case, this is a common stance.

 

[mckmas8808]

Before answering your question, and I will, let me ask one of my own. What is the difference between a privately owned bakery saying no to making a cake for a gay wedding, a Christian or Muslim house of worship refusing to marry a gay couple, or a Christian or Muslim house of worship refusing to marry the Christian and Muslim couple you described above?

Why should this form of discrimination be illegal in a privately owned business, but legal when it comes to where the marriage itself will take place? If we're talking slippery slope here, what specific argument protects the right of religions to practice their faith as they see fit in their own place of worship, but does not protect that right in their own businesses? What logical assurance to you have for Christians and Muslims that they should just go along with the cakes and flowers thing, and that will be the end of it?

And maybe you already guessed this, but yes, as long as they were able to cite an historical religious precedent, I'd want the speech of the baker to not be compelled in any way that he or she felt was at odds with their faith. And again, I only feel this way for people who own their business. Anyone else can and likely should be fired for violating company policy.



Same as above.

I always thought there was a clear difference between running a business in America and the civic duties that you have, compared to running a religious organization. In theory isn't it legel for a priest to discriminate who they will and won't marry in their place of worship? Yet that same priest running a hotel 2 miles away can't deny services for any of those same reasons. I thought that was baked into our basic US laws.

The attempt on this page to trivialize homosexuality as merely one among many disqualifications for Christian marriage is intellectually disingenous. You're both either misquoting scripture (1 Corinthians 7 discusses interfaith marriage at lines 12-14), or lying about the catechism to do it.

Indeed, dishonesty characterizes the entirety of the backlash to the outcome. This case was never about discrimination against sexual orientation, and the factual record described in the Supreme Court opinion has decisively removed this mischaracterization from the discussion (Page 28: "Mr. Phillips offered to make other baked goods for the couple, including cakes celebrating other occasions"). Freedom of religion is the very first civil liberty enshrined in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights; from many angles, it's the only reason why the United States came to exist in the first place. The framework of our republic recognizes that religious belief is not just another subjective opinion. If you have a deep objection to that reality, then you should either start the process of amending our Constitution, or you should probably try to find a country that more closely aligns with your sensibilities.

There's no trivialization going on. If there is it's on the other people trying to make it seem as if homosexuality is the other thing within humanity that God disapproves of when it comes to marriage. It's very clear and defined.

 

[Gold_Loot]

This is such a bold and incredible lie.

.

Hey, I appreciate the the thought out response, but a lier I am not. Misinformed? Maybe. Understand that I’m trying to point out that you don’t simply go into a church and the priest/paster will just up and marry any John and Jane that walks in is all. Also , while I haven’t read the data you submitted, I also haven’t been in the wedding scene for many years. ( yes I’m old ) so things do change over time.

As the posters above politely pointed out, yes, you can still marry into the catholic faith, but there are caveats that come with it (i.e. becoming a convert etc.)

I thought that kind of went without saying in my post , but that’s my bad for posting on a break and not being as thorough as I should be.

 

[Gold_Loot]

Nope, that's not quite right. It's still possible.

A Catholic can marry a non-Catholic on the condition that the non-Catholic is taught about Catholicism, the children are born Catholic, and that the non-Catholic won't be making the Catholic renounce his/her faith. A Catholic authority must also approve of the union after overseeing that the non-Catholic has understood these conditions.

Yeah...that's not true. My wife and I got married in a catholic church. She had to convert from greek to roman catholic to do so, but I remained without a religion. No problem as long as one person was catholic.
I'm not a one-off case, this is a common stance.

Yes you guys are right. Please see above. Sorry for the Double post. Multi quote fail.

 

[Kamina]

Yeah...that's not true. My wife and I got married in a catholic church. She had to convert from greek to roman catholic to do so, but I remained without a religion. No problem as long as one person was catholic.
I'm not a one-off case, this is a common stance.

If one partner is catholic, and the other is evangelic/protestant/without believe/... then they dont even need to convert, they just have to agree to raise the children according to catholic guidelines. If they want to marry in the catholic church that is.

Edit: too late

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

(Side note -- this thread-splitting is bad; once the SCOTUS decision came down and constituted major news in itself, this thread should have been closed in favor of the other one, as is the usual practice with a topic following a cycle like this one, with an initial discussion followed by a new major event months later. A mod is needed to clean up this kind of thing)

There's no trivialization going on. If there is it's on the other people trying to make it seem as if homosexuality is the other thing within humanity that God disapproves of when it comes to marriage. It's very clear and defined.

It's absurd to even frame the biblical prohibition on homosexual practices as one among a set of rules for marriage exclusions. It's not even categorically a part of the considerations for marriage, because it structurally lies entirely outside the scope of that category of relationship... much like one doesn't prohibit a square circle, because to even do so makes language incoherent.

You have to at least have a little conceptual clarity of terms to begin. The way you are framing it -- where heterosexuality is a special condition that has to be met for qualifying marriages -- makes "marriage" a special case under a general category of "committed sexual relationships." That extremely recent framing is wholly alien to the text, to the point where the anachronism makes reading scripture impossible. Marriage, in the biblical narrative, is a special case under "ways of relating men to women," and "ways of ordering human procreation." It arises entirely because of sexual difference; if not for men & women being split halves of creation, with both a shared task across that divide as well as a strong potential for enmity driven by our fallenness, the concept of uniting these two parts of humanity in a special ceremonial and covenantal relation would not exist... nor would any of the elements of marriage retain the slightest utility or coherence (2 people, permanent until death, one flesh, one house, genealogical event, etc).

 

[mckmas8808]

It's absurd to even frame the biblical prohibition on homosexual practices as one among a set of rules for marriage exclusions. It's not even categorically a part of the considerations for marriage, because it structurally lies entirely outside the scope of that category of relationship... much like one doesn't prohibit a square circle, because to even do so makes language incoherent.

You have to at least have a little conceptual clarity of terms to begin. The way you are framing it -- where heterosexuality is a special condition that has to be met for qualifying marriages -- makes "marriage" a special case under a general category of "committed sexual relationships." That extremely recent framing is wholly alien to the text, to the point where the anachronism makes reading scripture impossible. Marriage, in the biblical narrative, is a special case under "ways of relating men to women," and "ways of ordering human procreation." It arises entirely because of sexual difference; if not for men & women being split halves of creation, with both a shared task across that divide as well as a strong potential for enmity driven by our fallenness, the concept of uniting these two parts of humanity in a special ceremonial and covenantal relation would not exist... nor would any of the elements of marriage retain the slightest utility or coherence (2 people, permanent until death, one flesh, one house, genealogical event, etc).

So ultimately what are you trying to say here? There are clearly reasons where a marriage between a man and a woman would be disapproved of (within the understandings of a Christian marriage). I believe you know this. So maybe I missed your point, but what's the bottom line of what you were trying to say here?

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

So ultimately what are you trying to say here? There are clearly reasons where a marriage between a man and a woman would be disapproved of (within the understandings of a Christian marriage). I believe you know this. So maybe I missed your point, but what's the bottom line of what you were trying to say here?

Yes, as I stated, there are various reasons that a particular marriage arrangement would be met with biblical / religious disapproval. But disapproving when two persons of the same sex wish to appropriate the format of a wedding ceremony for whatever sexual or other relationship they have with each other is not in any way comparable to those disqualifying rules -- because in the case of the same-sex proposal, it is not a matter of disagreeing with the validity of a particular marriage pairing (she is too young; they are too closely related; etc), but is instead a matter where the religious person recognizes that what they regard as a religiously significant ceremony is being applied to something else wholly outside and directly contrary to its meaning.

It's akin to asking a Jewish establishment to cater a party that you're calling a "bar mitzvah" for someone who is undergoing late in life sex reassignment surgery... because you feel that this event has a similar sense of "coming of age" and wish to adopt their ceremonial wrappings for it. They would rightly recognize this as not simply being an improper bah mitzvah, but furthermore as being a distorting application of the words that is directly contrary to their meaning as a whole.

The reason shops don't generally deny wedding service for various infractions against a proper marriage (remarriage, close relations, etc) is that adjudicating these requires personal knowledge of the participants and the precise background of their situation, which a wedding baker has no right or need to delve into in detail. But when two people arrive to call something a "wedding" that wholly -- on the surface, with no further information needed -- runs against the entire meaning of the term, to serve that event and call it a wedding would be (for the religious person... you need not agree) exactly like participating in a costumed mimicry of a sacred event. It would be like a Christian shop decorating crucifixes for an art installation in which they are to be defiled on stage as an act of protest.

 

[Airola]

It's absurd to even frame the biblical prohibition on homosexual practices as one among a set of rules for marriage exclusions. It's not even categorically a part of the considerations for marriage, because it structurally lies entirely outside the scope of that category of relationship... much like one doesn't prohibit a square circle, because to even do so makes language incoherent.

You have to at least have a little conceptual clarity of terms to begin. The way you are framing it -- where heterosexuality is a special condition that has to be met for qualifying marriages -- makes "marriage" a special case under a general category of "committed sexual relationships." That extremely recent framing is wholly alien to the text, to the point where the anachronism makes reading scripture impossible. Marriage, in the biblical narrative, is a special case under "ways of relating men to women," and "ways of ordering human procreation." It arises entirely because of sexual difference; if not for men & women being split halves of creation, with both a shared task across that divide as well as a strong potential for enmity driven by our fallenness, the concept of uniting these two parts of humanity in a special ceremonial and covenantal relation would not exist... nor would any of the elements of marriage retain the slightest utility or coherence (2 people, permanent until death, one flesh, one house, genealogical event, etc).

Yes, as I stated, there are various reasons that a particular marriage arrangement would be met with biblical / religious disapproval. But disapproving when two persons of the same sex wish to appropriate the format of a wedding ceremony for whatever sexual or other relationship they have with each other is not in any way comparable to those disqualifying rules -- because in the case of the same-sex proposal, it is not a matter of disagreeing with the validity of a particular marriage pairing (she is too young; they are too closely related; etc), but is instead a matter where the religious person recognizes that what they regard as a religiously significant ceremony is being applied to something else wholly outside and directly contrary to its meaning.

It's akin to asking a Jewish establishment to cater a party that you're calling a "bar mitzvah" for someone who is undergoing late in life sex reassignment surgery... because you feel that this event has a similar sense of "coming of age" and wish to adopt their ceremonial wrappings for it. They would rightly recognize this as not simply being an improper bah mitzvah, but furthermore as being a distorting application of the words that is directly contrary to their meaning as a whole.

The reason shops don't generally deny wedding service for various infractions against a proper marriage (remarriage, close relations, etc) is that adjudicating these requires personal knowledge of the participants and the precise background of their situation, which a wedding baker has no right or need to delve into in detail. But when two people arrive to call something a "wedding" that wholly -- on the surface, with no further information needed -- runs against the entire meaning of the term, to serve that event and call it a wedding would be (for the religious person... you need not agree) exactly like participating in a costumed mimicry of a sacred event. It would be like a Christian shop decorating crucifixes for an art installation in which they are to be defiled on stage as an act of protest.

Bravo! Very well written.
This is what I tried to explain earlier but couldn't say clearly enough.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes, as I stated, there are various reasons that a particular marriage arrangement would be met with biblical / religious disapproval. But disapproving when two persons of the same sex wish to appropriate the format of a wedding ceremony for whatever sexual or other relationship they have with each other is not in any way comparable to those disqualifying rules -- because in the case of the same-sex proposal, it is not a matter of disagreeing with the validity of a particular marriage pairing (she is too young; they are too closely related; etc), but is instead a matter where the religious person recognizes that what they regard as a religiously significant ceremony is being applied to something else wholly outside and directly contrary to its meaning.

It's akin to asking a Jewish establishment to cater a party that you're calling a "bar mitzvah" for someone who is undergoing late in life sex reassignment surgery... because you feel that this event has a similar sense of "coming of age" and wish to adopt their ceremonial wrappings for it. They would rightly recognize this as not simply being an improper bah mitzvah, but furthermore as being a distorting application of the words that is directly contrary to their meaning as a whole.

The reason shops don't generally deny wedding service for various infractions against a proper marriage (remarriage, close relations, etc) is that adjudicating these requires personal knowledge of the participants and the precise background of their situation, which a wedding baker has no right or need to delve into in detail. But when two people arrive to call something a "wedding" that wholly -- on the surface, with no further information needed -- runs against the entire meaning of the term, to serve that event and call it a wedding would be (for the religious person... you need not agree) exactly like participating in a costumed mimicry of a sacred event. It would be like a Christian shop decorating crucifixes for an art installation in which they are to be defiled on stage as an act of protest.

Good points, but it's still missing the point that the baker would at this point be clearly choosing which things he does and doesn't care about. My examples do assume that the baker knew all of the sins that were currently at play before baking the cake though. So you are right that if none of that comes up, then he'd make the cake without even knowing why this marriage isn't an approved marriage.

What's really really clear here is that if a same sex couple wants to get married they just need to go alone or take a cousin to these places if they don't want to be denied. If they really like that business' work, don't answer many questions just tell them what you want and pay for the goods.

 

[Dunki]

Here is actually something I do not agree with and never will while I thought the bakery did answer the request in a very honest and respectable way. This here does not and should not be allowed to do so.

 

[mckmas8808]

Here is actually something I do not agree with and never will while I thought the bakery did answer the request in a very honest and respectable way. This here does not and should not be allowed to do so.

This is where alot of people "want" this stuff to go given the court's response. Of course the courts didn't say their ruling was wide enough to accept this.

 

[Dunki]

This is where alot of people "want" this stuff to go given the court's response. Of course the courts didn't say their ruling was wide enough to accept this.

And this I will never support personally and I also think its vastly different than with the bakery so if this goess to court this person would have lost.

 

[manfestival]

This is where alot of people "want" this stuff to go given the court's response. Of course the courts didn't say their ruling was wide enough to accept this.

There are of course a vocal minority that will support this. However, this is a different situation than the cake situation all together. This is actually discrimination.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

But that doesn't mean someone can wear a "no fat chicks" trucker hat to work

Challenge accepted.

 

[Vicetrailia]

"They gladly stand for what they believe in, why can't I? They believe their way is right, I believe it's wrong. But yet I'm going to take more persecution than them because I'm standing for what I believe in," Amyx said.

Have fun dealing with the consequences.

 

[Happy1996]

This here does not and should not be allowed to do so.

Cuz this is stupid. This is the market, it's about selling.

 

[TGO]

This is not unheard of in any business.
A lot of pharmacist in the UK refuse the morning after pill as its against their beliefs/religion.
People don't sue them, they just go elsewhere
Still it's just a cake, couldn't he sell them a generic wedding cake?

 

[Dunki]

This is not unheard of in any business.
A lot of pharmacist in the UK refuse the morning after pill as its against their beliefs/religion.
People don't sue them, they just go elsewhere
Still it's just a cake, couldn't he sell them a generic wedding cake?

He want to find a compromise and yes he tried that. But that sparked so much outrage that the bakery has gotten death threats

 

[TGO]

He want to find a compromise and yes he tried that. But that sparked so much outrage that the bakery has gotten death threats

So I assume it was a Two Men holding hands on top request, and the Guy didn't want to do it?
I see that being a problem if you're by the Bible man
It's kinda blasphemy to them really.

 

[Halo is Back]

This will be the un-popular opinion but I believe a business has a right to not server someone if they wish and you as a consumer also has that right. Fuck them and take your business elsewhere I say. This is also comming from a gay marriage supporter. Dosen't change that the owners are scum bags, but just take your business elsewhere they don't deserve your money.

 

[HStallion]

Here is actually something I do not agree with and never will while I thought the bakery did answer the request in a very honest and respectable way. This here does not and should not be allowed to do so.

Its now the hottest gay nightclub around so it seems like it ended well.

 

[mckmas8808]

This will be the un-popular opinion but I believe a business has a right to not server someone if they wish and you as a consumer also has that right. Fuck them and take your business elsewhere I say. This is also comming from a gay marriage supporter. Dosen't change that the owners are scum bags, but just take your business elsewhere they don't deserve your money.

Depending on the "if they wish", this is totally illegal.

 

[Kenpachii]

The cake maker has no right to refuse business with gays. However he can refuse to make gay themed cakes if he doesn't want too. He can then give them a list of cakes he does make. They can either select one or move to the next baker.

Simple.

 

[mcz117chief]

The cake maker has no right to refuse business with gays. However he can refuse to make gay themed cakes if he doesn't want too. He can then give them a list of cakes he does make. They can either select one or move to the next baker.

Simple.

This is literally exactly what happened (not sure if you are making a statement or just saying what happened out loud). I can't just go to a random bakery and tell them to make me a cake in a shape of genitalia (male or female, primary or secondary), so if the baker tells them "I won't make you this one specific cake but you can order any other I make" it is 100% fine. From what I read the baker refuses to make erotic or pagan related cakes too (Halloween for example). This whole thing was massively overblown.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

The truly despicable bit amongst those who would prosecute these cases is that any business providing a service is already fully permitted to turn down potential commissions for the most inconsequential of reasons without any need for justification... a photographer for instance can say things like: "I won't take your outdoor wedding because I'm just not comfortable shooting in that venue"; "that's not a good week for me, I must decline"; "Okay, it sounds like your event is some kind of dance party rather than a traditional wedding; I'm sorry, I don't think I'm a good fit for capturing properly" -- or just about anything else. To permit all of these incidental refusals, yet balk at someone refusing service for the much more critically and ethically important reason of a religious conflict, is truly heinous market ideology of the worst kind.

The notion that entering the market means giving up your soul to whatever transaction comes along is dehumanizing libertarianism, not something particularly becoming or remotely consistent of the Left to adopt. It would in fact be a very good thing to see people more radically refusing market transactions in various areas for significant moral conflicts, even when or precisely when the money is perfectly good and the service is not physically inconvenient -- because that would restore the proper notion that business is never some magically neutral ground, and being paid for doing something makes you not even slightly less responsible as a participant in what you're enabling with your service than when you offer the same service as a favor to a friend.