What is it about the gays?..

[Zguy28]

Explain a reasonable motive where a cake is promoting a gay wedding, but selling them cupcakes for a wedding doesn't promote a gay wedding. Excuse me? Please, make sense of it. If you can, then maybe I'll bite, but I actually put some thought into it. Thanks.

One has two dudes on top of it?

 

[Beta]

One has two dudes on top of it?

Why, because cupcakes can't? What if the baker doesn't have two dudes available and tells them to get it online, but makes the actual cake? There were plenty of ways he could have avoided it. Maybe he thought making a wedding cake for a big gay wedding was bad for business. Oops.

Cupcake pic:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...3V5zPrzspayShHAROU1JkgmM7IJeCnVJzjCOfNTTewYFz
If he made a bunch of groom cupcakes, would that have been immoral too? Apparently not, according to the baker.

 

[PsyOps]

How do you know they blew that message? Can you read minds as well predict the future?

And are you forgetting what Jesus SAID to that woman after everybody left?

If you had included the rest of my post ("Do I believe the gay couple would have changed their ways if the owners had baked them a cake and seized that as an opportunity to preach? I doubt it.") you would have had an answer to the 'mind reading' question.

But that would be part of the conversation if it came up. IF, the baker had decided to bake the cake for the gay couple 1 of two things likely would have happened:

1. The gay couple listened and actually considered what the baker preached to them

or

2. They would have gotten fed up with listening and probably would have said "forget it, we'll go somewhere else for our cake".

Win - Win!

 

[hotcoffee]

I'm not even sure why I am bringing this up, because I already know how this discussion will go (not well). But it has always befuddled me as to how much anger homosexuality brings out in so many Christians. Take this article for instance. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/9/transgendered-priest-give-sermon-washington-nation/

You've got a transgendered Episcopal Priest giving a sermon at the National Cathedral. The comments at the end are just insane. Talk about some hate being leveled at other human beings by the religion that is supposed to be all about "love thy neighbor" and whatnot.

Sure it's a sin, you can't say (in accordance with the bible) that it isn't, however, so is coveting and adultery. Not keeping the sabbath day holy is also a big no no. So all you football fans are sinning like nobodies business (just sayin). :shrug:

I just don't get why being a homo is so much worse than any of the other sins within the Bible. Hell, being queer didn't even make the Top Ten (as in commandments).

What's with all the hate? Please discuss.

1st of all.... If this priest is a priest then the priest is celebent.... Right?

It's the sin of a man laying down with a man and having intimate relationships.

In this case... the priest is a man who has acknowledged that he has a particular thorn that he must bare.... as Paul who was issued a license to kill followers of Jesus.... a thorn.... like lust or greed or hate.... a thorn....

This priest in being celebent is showing that although he has a human nature, he has a love for Christ His Savior.

I believe it is possible for two people to live in the same home without the intimacy of sex. Friendship is boundless.

So, although there are a lot of i's to dot and t's to cross.... It is possible on a case by case basis for a transgender human to be accepted as a devoted follower of Jesus.

It's not up to me to judge.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm much less critical of homosexuality than I used to be, and much more inclined to believe that they are born that way. As such, I find it hard to find fault with it, even though it still at some gut level kind of nauseates me. .

Not directed at you but, general comments; There is the issue; why would anyone find fault with it??? It's like finding fault with someones preference for a football team or a wine or a flavor of ice cream or the beach over the mountains. or any other religion.

Gay people are NOT trying to run Christianity and declare their way THE way. Far from it. They are saying "I don't believe in your faith." Nor are they beating on doors and trying to convert people to their beliefs. Or holding weekly services at the tax free gay church. Or trying to pass constitutional amendments banning heterosexual marriage.

There are guys and gals who like their sex standard missionary position in their bedroom and late at night and not very often and only to make babies and do NOT like oral sex, anal sex, various positions, sex toys, waxes, oils, candles, adventurous sex or anything else two consenting heterosexual adults can come up with. That is THEIR preference. To them, all the rest in deviant, not normal, queer, odd and so forth. It stands completely to reason that, when it comes to sex, preference is as varied as preferences concerning food, exercise, entertainment, drink or any thing else humans do. So, being nauseous over gay sex, something someone else chooses to do, makes sense in the same way normal people recoil at the thought of scotch or fois gras or riding bicycles or the Dallas Cowboys. However, I don't seek to have those things banned and I have no concern over suddenly liking them against my will and that's another thing;

People who are viscerally anti gay seem to be coming from the standpoint of fear that they, or their kids, will become infected with the gay gene and suddenly stop liking the opposite sex. That's not how it works. If anything, sexual preference is perhaps the most hard wired of human preference. I can see someone growing to like scotch or riding two wheeled engine-less vehicles or even sorta liking the Cowboys but, sexual intimacy, the only people I've ever known who 'became' gay, always were, will tell you so, and have simply been suppressing themselves out of fear and finally had enough and 'came out'. So, once you get past puberty and the thought of sex with a male does nothing for you and you dig chicks, you're set for life.

Vehemently anti gay people jump up and down and scream about being 'forced' to accept gayety, having the Big Gay Agenda 'shoved down their throats' (a fascinating analogy in itself) but, if we look at what gays do compared to what is arrayed against them, accusations of mental illness, restriction, ostrasisation (sp?) and use of the law to restrict them, it's not exactly the Big Gay Jihad. Worse yet, in the process, what has ended up happening is Christianity has marginalized and reduced itself and I, personally, consider that a bad thing.

So, it should be fine to think homosexuality is wrong same as adultery or swearing or whatever your faith tells you but, in the US, there is supposed to be the same right to pursue happiness for everyone else, as long as that pursuit is not harming others, as there is for you.

Baking a cake for gay people is not going to create one more gay person anymore than not baking that cake is going to reduce the number of gays and if you believe otherwise, you really ought to expect a certain amount of fun being made at your expense if you make a big deal about it.

 

[PsyOps]

Not directed at you but, general comments; There is the issue; why would anyone find fault with it???

From a Christian point of view, and biblically speaking, it’s a sin.

 

[Larry Gude]

From a Christian point of view, and biblically speaking, it’s a sin.

Yeah, and if you're not a Christian, how far do I take demonizing you for happily being gay and balancing that with religious freedom? I put it that way, you, me, to personalize it, not as an insult or inference, that jazz preference deviance not withstanding.

 

[Zguy28]

Not directed at you but, general comments; There is the issue; why would anyone find fault with it??? It's like finding fault with someones preference for a football team or a wine or a flavor of ice cream or the beach over the mountains. or any other religion.

Gay people are NOT trying to run Christianity and declare their way THE way. Far from it. They are saying "I don't believe in your faith." Nor are they beating on doors and trying to convert people to their beliefs. Or holding weekly services at the tax free gay church. Or trying to pass constitutional amendments banning heterosexual marriage.

There are guys and gals who like their sex standard missionary position in their bedroom and late at night and not very often and only to make babies and do NOT like oral sex, anal sex, various positions, sex toys, waxes, oils, candles, adventurous sex or anything else two consenting heterosexual adults can come up with. That is THEIR preference. To them, all the rest in deviant, not normal, queer, odd and so forth. It stands completely to reason that, when it comes to sex, preference is as varied as preferences concerning food, exercise, entertainment, drink or any thing else humans do. So, being nauseous over gay sex, something someone else chooses to do, makes sense in the same way normal people recoil at the thought of scotch or fois gras or riding bicycles or the Dallas Cowboys. However, I don't seek to have those things banned and I have no concern over suddenly liking them against my will and that's another thing;

People who are viscerally anti gay seem to be coming from the standpoint of fear that they, or their kids, will become infected with the gay gene and suddenly stop liking the opposite sex. That's not how it works. If anything, sexual preference is perhaps the most hard wired of human preference. I can see someone growing to like scotch or riding two wheeled engine-less vehicles or even sorta liking the Cowboys but, sexual intimacy, the only people I've ever known who 'became' gay, always were, will tell you so, and have simply been suppressing themselves out of fear and finally had enough and 'came out'. So, once you get past puberty and the thought of sex with a male does nothing for you and you dig chicks, you're set for life.

Vehemently anti gay people jump up and down and scream about being 'forced' to accept gayety, having the Big Gay Agenda 'shoved down their throats' (a fascinating analogy in itself) but, if we look at what gays do compared to what is arrayed against them, accusations of mental illness, restriction, ostrasisation (sp?) and use of the law to restrict them, it's not exactly the Big Gay Jihad. Worse yet, in the process, what has ended up happening is Christianity has marginalized and reduced itself and I, personally, consider that a bad thing.

So, it should be fine to think homosexuality is wrong same as adultery or swearing or whatever your faith tells you but, in the US, there is supposed to be the same right to pursue happiness for everyone else, as long as that pursuit is not harming others, as there is for you.

Baking a cake for gay people is not going to create one more gay person anymore than not baking that cake is going to reduce the number of gays and if you believe otherwise, you really ought to expect a certain amount of fun being made at your expense if you make a big deal about it.

Lot to digest on this post, but as with most things, one shouldn't make sweeping statements regarding groups of people. While many are not trying to "run Christianity" others are not so passive. Just search the web on "gay Christians". Or look up Matthew Vines.

Also, certainly a Christian should expect mockery when standing for righteousness, for it is contrary to the world's beliefs.

 

[baydoll]

We could always go back to where blacks are banned everywhere because white people don't want to sell them anything. Is it better if we are all allowed to discriminate? I'm sure someone would turn down bible thumpers too. Would you organize a rally against them? Let's call up Westboro Baptist!

Good Morning, Beta!

Holy Moly those are pretty big Red Herrings you've thrown into the discussion here.

But since you've brought them up, I will try and answer them.

Neither religion nor gay rights have ANYTHING to do with civil rights and you using it is equivalent to someone playing the Race/Hate card. Hello! This isn't about refusing someone on race.

Once (or twice, I'm losing count here) again, he didn't refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation or WHO THEY WERE, he refused because he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs. It is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays, but it is against the Christian faith to knowingly participate and profit from a gay marriage or civil union. THAT'S the point.

By the way... I'm finding it SO ironic that most people on this board say these bakers (as well as Christians) are SOOOO hateful and intolerent and discriminating when they themselves are SOOOO hateful and intolerant and discriminating against this baker (and Christians). YOU are the ones forcing us to do something we do not believe in. YOU are the ones who are the bullies here, not us.

YOU preach at US and tell us not to judge but then have the freaking nerves to JUDGE AND LABEL US by lumping us in with some disgusting looney-tunes hate group (Westboro Baptists).

But I guess that's okay...

 

[baydoll]

Ugh, Fox News. Talk about a misinformed readership. But thank you for attempting to find something that would help provide further clarification.

Anyway, my point was that unless the cake was flaming gay where working on it offended him, i.e. something that a straight couple wouldn't order (like a penis cake), then I don't see where he had any complaint or reason not to fulfill the order. What he decided is that by making a cake, he was somehow promoting a gay wedding, but by offering to make them a bunch of cupcakes for their wedding, that wouldn't be promoting it. That smells like a completely BS story made up after the fact because he needed some kind of bogus excuse.

Don't believe everything you read. When it smells like a rat, it's a rat.

And yet you know what really and truly happened! WOW that is truly amazing! You wanna show us ignorant folks where you got your information from Mr. Sees Everything Knows Everything?

Bogus story? Okay....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-shut-shopp-serve-gay-couples-article-1.1815868

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...e-shopmustsellcakestogaycouplejudgerules.html

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/...dding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/tony-perkins-gay-boxcars-_n_5473738.html

 

[baydoll]

If you had included the rest of my post ("Do I believe the gay couple would have changed their ways if the owners had baked them a cake and seized that as an opportunity to preach? I doubt it.") you would have had an answer to the 'mind reading' question.

But that would be part of the conversation if it came up. IF, the baker had decided to bake the cake for the gay couple 1 of two things likely would have happened:

1. The gay couple listened and actually considered what the baker preached to them

or

2. They would have gotten fed up with listeninbly would have said "forget it, we'll go somewhere else for our cake".

Win - Win!

Actually no.

Let's put Jesus into this since you brought Him up. Would Jesus condone something He is against?

 

[Beta]

Good Morning, Beta!

Holy Moly those are pretty big Red Herrings you've thrown into the discussion here.

But since you've brought them up, I will try and answer them.

Neither religion nor gay rights have ANYTHING to do with civil rights and you using it is equivalent to someone playing the Race/Hate card. Hello! This isn't about refusing someone on race.

Once (or twice, I'm losing count here) again, he didn't refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation or WHO THEY WERE, he refused because he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs. It is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays, but it is against the Christian faith to knowingly participate and profit from a gay marriage or civil union. THAT'S the point.

By the way... I'm finding it SO ironic that most people on this board say these bakers (as well as Christians) are SOOOO hateful and intolerent and discriminating when they themselves are SOOOO hateful and intolerant and discriminating against this baker (and Christians). YOU are the ones forcing us to do something we do not believe in. YOU are the ones who are the bullies here, not us.

YOU preach at US and tell us not to judge but then have the freaking nerves to JUDGE AND LABEL US by lumping us in with some disgusting looney-tunes hate group (Westboro Baptists).

But I guess that's okay...

Wait, what...you're not allowed to profit from making a cake for a gay wedding? That's in the bible? I'm impressed they had the foresight to write that down.

You'd like to believe that one type of discrimination (race) is different from another type of discrimination (religion, I guess?), but they're not. That's why I used that as a very simple comparison. The Westboro part was obviously hyperbole, but I was trying to point out the potentially slippery slope.

Nobody here is "hating" on Christians or their beliefs. I still haven't found a Christian belief, other than what you just said, that it's sacrilege to make a cake for a gay couple.

And yet you know what really and truly happened! WOW that is truly amazing! You wanna show us ignorant folks where you got your information from Mr. Sees Everything Knows Everything?

Bogus story? Okay....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-shut-shopp-serve-gay-couples-article-1.1815868

http://america.aljazeera.com/articl...e-shopmustsellcakestogaycouplejudgerules.html

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/...dding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/09/tony-perkins-gay-boxcars-_n_5473738.html

Sorry, I think you misunderstood. My point is I'm wondering if he made a claim that he would have served them anything other than a wedding cake, but I'm curious if it actually happened. I just find it to be a thin story.

And HOLY CRAP, that Huffington Post article is beyond offensive! LGBT is going to lead to human extinction and the ruling in the case is like the HOLOCAUST? That's LUNACY!

 

[baydoll]

Explain a reasonable motive where a cake is promoting a gay wedding, but selling them cupcakes for a wedding doesn't promote a gay wedding. Excuse me? Please, make sense of it. If you can, then maybe I'll bite, but I actually put some thought into it. Thanks.

The cake was a special order (with two grooms on top as Zguy mentioned) and the cupcakes weren't.

You're welcome.

 

[baydoll]

Wait, what...you're not allowed to profit from making a cake for a gay wedding? That's in the bible? I'm impressed they had the foresight to write that down.

You'd like to believe that one type of discrimination (race) is different from another type of discrimination (religion, I guess?), but they're not. That's why I used that as a very simple comparison. The Westboro part was obviously hyperbole, but I was trying to point out the potentially slippery slope.

Nobody here is "hating" on Christians or their beliefs. I still haven't found a Christian belief, other than what you just said, that it's sacrilege to make a cake for a gay couple.

Don't like to read whole posts I take it....

Again since you keep skipping over these parts:

..he didn't refuse service to them because of their sexual orientation or WHO THEY WERE, he refused because

he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs.

It is not against the Christian faith to do business with gays, but it is against the Christian faith to

knowingly participate

and profit from a gay marriage or civil union. THAT'S the point.

(Profit was a bad choice of words.)

And as for the race vs. religion comparison, please re-read the above. AGAIN he didn't refuse service to them because of who they were but because he was asked to do something that was against his beliefs.

Discrimination would be this :

The bakery had a sign stating THIS ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT SERVE GAYS.


You are being totally unfair by judging (and yes you are judging) this man and labeling him as a bigot.

 

[baydoll]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood. My point is I'm wondering if he made a claim that he would have served them anything other than a wedding cake, but I'm curious if it actually happened. I just find it to be a thin story.

And HOLY CRAP, that Huffington Post article is beyond offensive! LGBT is going to lead to human extinction and the ruling in the case is like the HOLOCAUST? That's LUNACY!

I don't know what to tell you then, Beta. What sources do you like?

 

[PsyOps]

Actually no.

Let's put Jesus into this since you brought Him up. Would Jesus condone something He is against?

You're not really paying attention to what I'm posting. Because you served someone does not mean you condone their behavior. Did Jesus condone adultery? Yet he still forgave her and told her to sin no more. He did not turn her away, he did not demand she be stoned (as their law demanded); he loved her and had mercy on her. But he did not condone her behavior.

And didn't put Jesus into this; Jesus was in this from the beginning by default.

 

[PsyOps]

Yeah, and if you're not a Christian, how far do I take demonizing you for happily being gay and balancing that with religious freedom? I put it that way, you, me, to personalize it, not as an insult or inference, that jazz preference deviance not withstanding.

I’m coming strictly from a biblical standpoint. I hold the same view of Christians that demonize gays as I do gays that are fanatical about demanding everyone accept their lifestyle. But, in today’s America it has become acceptable to openly talk about homosexuality while considered taboo to openly talk about God. It's acceptable to shove the gay lifestyle down everyone's throat, but don't dare do the same with God. In fact, it's has become a requirement to vilify anyone that dare speak out against gays while promoting the vilification of Christianity.

And jazz is GOD'S music!

 

[Beta]

Anyway...this is getting nowhere. I'm reading everything and trying to make points, but as long as you're blind toward faith then anything I say doesn't really matter. So let me break it down more simply. If anything we do is OK for religious purposes, then is it OK to blow people up in the name of jihad? Is it OK to kill abortion doctors who are breaking the Christian faith, or tar & feather them, or maybe just break a window in their business and try to get them to leave town? Where do you draw the line? Here's an even less extreme example: Non-Muslims aren't allowed to go to Mecca. What if Muslims took over your apartment/neighborhood/whatever and you were thrown out of your home for being Christian? Would you be OK if you were banned and having to relocate because you're a Christian? If they believe you're an "infidel" and unclean and can't live near them, then that's their belief and it's OK, right?

My point is simple. Until you get picked on because of your religion, race, or whatever stupid thing some asshat wants to make you feel bad about, you can't really talk about how it's "ok" for someone to use anything as their reason for discrimination. Once it happens to you, you know how it feels, and you realize it really can dehumanize you, you might feel differently. But most people in here haven't really experienced that, so they haven't a clue.

 

[Beta]

You're not really paying attention to what I'm posting. Because you served someone does not mean you condone their behavior. Did Jesus condone adultery? Yet he still forgave her and told her to sin no more. He did not turn her away, he did not demand she be stoned (as their law demanded); he loved her and had mercy on her. But he did not condone her behavior.

And didn't put Jesus into this; Jesus was in this from the beginning by default.

Indeed...wasn't it something like "let the non-sinner throw the first stone?" Because we're supposed to be loving towards our neighbors. If Christians are supposed to walk in Jesus' footsteps and live up to that standard, how does Christianity also tell people it's OK not to do what Jesus would have done? Simple answer: it doesn't. The guy wasn't being a CHRISTian.

 

[Amused_despair]

Indeed...wasn't it something like "let the non-sinner throw the first stone?" Because we're supposed to be loving towards our neighbors. If Christians are supposed to walk in Jesus' footsteps and live up to that standard, how does Christianity also tell people it's OK not to do what Jesus would have done? Simple answer: it doesn't. The guy wasn't being a CHRISTian.

"let the first one amongst you who has not eaten bacon or shrimp or worked on the Sabbath be the first one to deny the gay person their cake" yeah, don't see that happening.