letters at random said:

---

Quote:

---

No one is infringing on their personal freedom to religion

---

Forcing someone to participate in a religious ceremony that violates their longstanding religious conviction ISN'T infringing on personal freedom of religion? I find that claim absurd. Truly. There is no comprehensible concept called "personal freedom of religion" that fails to include the right to opt out of religious ceremonies.

---

As private individuals they can opt out of whatever they want. In their capacity as business owners, they are required to provide equal service to customers. If they service weddings, they have to service weddings. Even if they don't personally approve. The work around is to stop doing weddings, become a private club, or find another job.

letters at random said:

---

Quote:

---

I gave two examples that people cry persecution on. Neither of those examples are actually persecution. It's not a lack of empathy. A business saying "Happy Holidays" isn't persecution.

---

How about a Christian (or Muslim for that matter) either participating in a religious event that violates her long standing religious convictions, or being fined $100,000 and forced out of business? Does that qualify as persecution?

---

Well, it depends on how one defines "persecution". I can certainly see how one could label that as persecution. That said, I also don't think that baking a cake for a same sex wedding ceremony constitutes "participating" in it, nor do I believe it's a violation of our faith. At least no more than baking a cake for a wedding ceremony of a individuals who have been previously married.


Also, I never said there is no persecution in America. The examples most loudly screamed about, even to the point of a presidential candidate repeatedly mentioning (Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas) are absolutely not persecution.

Quote:

---

Forcing someone to participate in a religious ceremony

---

But is it actually participating in a "religious ceremony"? I mean, what if they couple do a Justice of the Peace ceremony, and then host a reception afterwards? There's nothing inherently religious about a state-sanctioned civil marriage ceremony. The reception afterwards has no religious nature to it either. What religious ceremony are they participating in then?

I think this is where we get into trouble conflating religious marriage and civil marriage.

Quote:

---

Except that nobody is declining to bake cakes for gay people. They're declining to bake cakes that will be used in a religious ceremony that violates their longstanding religious conviction.


I'm waiting for the first news story of somebody walking into a flower shop to buy a rose and the shopowner saying, "hey! You're gay! We don't serve your kind here!"

---

Schmendeler's response is a sufficient rebuttal to this.

Create Account said:

---

Baking a cake for an abortion celebration party for feminists, or a 9/11 celebration party for Muslims, or a Holocaust celebration party for Nazis are all violations of conscience. A baker should never have to do that. And yes, it would be persecution to force him to or else be fined or lose his business. I don't care what his religion is.

---

Oh, I absolutely agree that it's wrong for any business to be forced to conduct business with anyone against their will. A violation of their rights? Absolutely. Religious persecution? I wouldn't label it as such.

Create Account said:

---

Most people's moral compass is shaped by their religion. Plus, vocation is a form of worship in many religions. And specifically targeting Christians who they knew would decline is absolutely religious persecution. They picked them because of their religion.

---

I would be curious if this bakery refuses to bake for a couple on their 2nd or 3rd marriage. If not, aren't they selectively choosing when to apply their faith-driven moral compass? But they aren't even being asked to participate in a religious ceremony anyways.

Like I said, I would be more prone to label this is a violation of their rights, but not so much religious persecution. Perhaps it is and we're wrong in defining it as such. I don't get why people are so objected to baking a cake for a reception that takes place after a civil marriage ceremony. I think it's a great opportunity to be a witness to others, but that's just how I see it.

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

So persecution must meet your personal arbitrary threshold to be considered valid? Because that's about all this highlights, other than perhaps your lack of empathy for other Christians.

---

if the persecution doesn't actually impact the free exercise of their religious beliefs, then I'd say it's fair to lack empathy when someone claims persecution.

---

Agreed. However, I don't think most people are crying persecution when companies feebly say Happy Holiday, especially when the word holiday means 'holy day' itself - not exclusive of Christmas obviously.

I think Christian persecution is happening in a slightly different, but related way to the happy holidays fiasco. According to your definition, persecution of Christians is happening here in the US, albeit slowly and gradually; maybe not in the strictly legal sense, but it is becoming less acceptable to voice Christian beliefs in a public platform, and therefore the free exercise of these beliefs are being impacted.

For example, the practicing Christians that believe gay marriage is not marriage, and that all abortion is murder are all but silenced on most public networks for fear from the producer of being labeled a 'bigot, anti-woman, misogynist, intolerant, hateful,' etc and losing viewers and followers. Another example of this intentional censorship of Christian beliefs is colleges across the country creating "safe-spaces" where students won't hear any speaker espouse Christian / conservative beliefs because they disagree with them. An even more surprising example of this is Catholic university DePaul not allowing pro-life posters to be hung up, while at the same time allowing Black Lives Matter material to be hung up around campus (http://www.dailywire.com/news/10002/catholic-university-bans-unborn-lives-matter-amanda-prestigiacomo).

Again, examples like this are not completely restricting the free exercise of religious beliefs. However, like a drip in the bucket day after day, intentional efforts are being made by people to restrict the free exercise, censor, or otherwise demonize largely Christian-held beliefs. At the same time, you only need to partially impact the free exercise of a religious belief for it to be considered persecution. Definition of persecution: "a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate people based on their membership in a religious, ethnic, social, or racial group:" http://www.dictionary.com/browse/persecution?s=t
It may not be a physical / legal force driving Christians away, but socially it is happening more and more. To say Christian beliefs are being driven out of society in the public forum would be accurate.

Quote:

---

Exactly. You see it that way, others don't. The reality of living in a multiculture, multireligion, multiethnic society. Maybe they don't view a 2nd or 3rd marriage as wrong? Not our place, or the government's, to arbitrate what are valid and invalid morals. As long as the bakery is peaceful and not providing a health risk, they should be able to run their business as they please. Society and the government should recognize differences of opinion and let them be.

---

I absolutely agree they should be able to run their business as they please. But, if their decision is driven by their faith in Christ, then they cannot turn around and say they see nothing wrong w/ a 2nd or 3rd marriage and provide a cake for the post-ceremony. If they are going to cite their faith, then they need to be consistent.

Quote:

---

At least one bakery was targeted by homosexuals SOLELY on the fact that they were Christian. They knew the bakery would decline. That is religious persecution. No different than targeting a Jewish bakery by Nazis for their Holocaust party. Or a self-proclaimed family bakery by abortionists. Or an American bakery in Egypt for some Muslims' 9/11 party. Maybe you don't like the word persecution. Call it religious targeting.

---

I have no problem w/ the word "persecution". Perhaps it's a matter of what comes to mind when I hear the word. Being told to bake a cake, while morally wrong to force someone to do so, just doesn't feel like persecution to me. They aren't being denied their ability to exercise their faith. There's nothing within our faith that would prohibit us from baking a cake for a wedding reception, so I'm not sure why people are so adamant on refusing in the first place. Bake the best damn cake possible and give God all the glory. Use it as an opportunity to be a witness to Christ.

Quote:

---

but it is becoming less acceptable to voice Christian beliefs in a public platform, and therefore the free exercise of these beliefs are being impacted.

---

No, it's really not. Over 90% of Congress says they are Christian. Something like 70% of Americans say they are Christian. We see Christian beliefs expressed all over the place. I make no secret of my faith in Christ, and have never once faced backlash from people.

Heck, you had a serial womanizer falling over himself to convince us that he's Christian. I think the backlash seen is against this Americanized Christianity that looks nothing like Christ.

Quote:

---

First, do you recognize that some may see nothing wrong with a 2nd or 3rd marriage? Do you recognize that someone may come to the conclusion that their faith does prohibit them from baking a cake for a homosexual wedding reception? You seem to think everyone thinks like you. Or that your faith is THE faith.

---

Jesus was actually quite clear on divorce and remarriage. It's odd that they'd take a position that something explicitly addressed by Christ is fine, but something not really addressed is prohibited. The way I view it, it would seem their position on divorce/remarriage is driven more by social norms than their faith.

Quote:

---

I know you are a pacifist, as am I. If I worked for a company that was a commercial & defense contractor, it would be a violation of my conscience and religion to design radar that I knew was going to be used in a missile, or a fighter plane. Even though I wasn't the one pushing the button to kill. I would expect my company and society to recognize this, even though the majority in my religion view war as just, given the right circumstances. I would expect them to put me on projects on the commercial side and not the defense side with the treat of losing my job if I don't comply.

---

And if they tried to make you work on the defense side, and fired you for refusing to do so, that would not be persecution.

Quote:

---

I would not expect someone to tell me to "build the best damn radar possible and give God all the glory and use it as an opportunity to be a witness to Christ."

---

The cake isn't being used to violate or kill others. It's not being used to sin. If a priest/preacher were being forced to conduct a wedding ceremony at the threat of jail/fine, that would be persecution. The wedding reception, however, is not a religious ceremony. It's a party. The "religious" aspect of the marriage has already been conducted and the baker had nothing to do with it.

I'm fine with them refusing to bake the cake. I think that's their right and, as an anarchist, I absolutely oppose government involvement.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

but it is becoming less acceptable to voice Christian beliefs in a public platform, and therefore the free exercise of these beliefs are being impacted.

---

No, it's really not. Over 90% of Congress says they are Christian. Something like 70% of Americans say they are Christian. We see Christian beliefs expressed all over the place. I make no secret of my faith in Christ, and have never once faced backlash from people.

Heck, you had a serial womanizer falling over himself to convince us that he's Christian. I think the backlash seen is against this Americanized Christianity that looks nothing like Christ.

---

Just because polls and surveys (which are inherently inaccurate) say 70% of the US is Christian or that 90% of Congress is Christian doesn't mean that 1 - they are practicing Christians, will stand up for, or agree with what the majority of Christian denominations' teachings espouse, especially when it comes to controversial issues, 2 - that it is an accurate numerical count of the census' religious preference and 3 - that there's an entirely different meaning between someone saying they're Christian in name only, and someone who says it and lives out Christianity according to its beliefs; therefore the two different people's beliefs could be radically different and do not embody the group of Christians I am referring to as being persecuted, nor does it even accurately describe the 70% you spoke about. Donald Trump is the perfect example of one who says he is Christian but clearly is not a practicing Christian.

Look I get it, the word itself "persecuted" seems like a strong word when we are talking about a group of people with religious beliefs that can still walk around and say what they want in this country. Especially when compared to physically persecuted and martyred Christians in the middle-east. My point is that there are social consequences (a form of persecution) to having Christian-held beliefs in the mainstream of society, especially media outlets. Just because you and I may share our Christian beliefs with others on the street, at work, in our neighborhood, on social media, etc. doesn't make those beliefs any more acceptable or more importantly equally upheld in today's society than say 20, 10, or heck even 5 years ago.

I think a better argument of Christian persecution in the US would be Christians being arrested for feeding the homeless. To me, we hear far too much about bakers and same sex weddings, and not enough about people being incarcerated for following the explicit teachings of Christ.

To me, that's persecution and a much more valid example than the bakery case.

Quote:

---

My point is that there are social consequences (a form of persecution) to having Christian-held beliefs in the mainstream of society, especially media outlets. Just because you and I may share our Christian beliefs with others on the street, at work, in our neighborhood, on social media, etc. doesn't make those beliefs any more acceptable or more importantly equally upheld in today's society than say 20, 10, or heck even 5 years ago.

---

But it's hard to say there's persecution when we can share our beliefs on the street, at work, in our neighborhoods, on social media, etc. The fact that they aren't as "acceptable" as they were 20 years ago, to me, is the backlash we've seen from faux-Christianity, cultural Christianity, Americanized Christianity, or whatever you want to call it. I think much of the backlash is due to our own hypocrisy that the world sees. When the world hears us, on Sunday, talk about an all-loving God, then on Monday see us calling transgender people "freaks", liberals or conservatives "evil" or "traitors", etc. then they begin to completely dismiss us and go on the counterattack.

Just my 2 cents though.

Create Account said:

---

Quote:

---

Jesus was actually quite clear on divorce and remarriage.

---

Quote:

---

The cake isn't being used to violate or kill others. It's not being used to sin.

---

You're missing the point. A person should not have to make a theological argument to society or the government in order to get off. People should recognize differences of opinion. If we had an established church in America, that would be one thing. A church synod or council could settle the matter. But we don't. That doesn't mean you can now step in to be the arbiter of moral truth, or what is or is not valid faith, or when you can/cannot cite your faith. Nor can I, nor can the "majority" of society, nor can a court, etc. We live in a pluralistic society. As such, recognize differences in opinion, faith, morals, etc. and let people be.

---

No, I'm really not missing the point. I simply disagree with your point. Yes, a person shouldn't have to make a theological argument to refuse service to someone. But, divorce/remarriage isn't simply a matter of opinion, at least as a Christian. We know what Christ said. We don't need an established church in America to settle the matter.

If they are going to refuse service based on their religious convictions, then they will rightly be challenged to test consistency. If they are arbitrarily choosing when to apply their faith, then they will lose credibility. Christ was clear on divorce/remarriage. He said nothing about post wedding parties. So, if you want to cite your faith to avoid making a cake for a wedding reception, fine. But, I would expect that you apply your faith in other areas and refuse to bake a cake for a remarriage. If not, then you are going to be rightly labeled a hypocrite.

I guess my point is that I think it's a stretch to call the bakery issue "persecution". I know many will label it as such, and while I disagree with the use of the term there, I can see where they are coming from. If one is trying to make the argument of the existence of persecution in the US today, though, there are more valid examples, IMO.

Seems very judgmental. I think we should recognize differences and let people be.

Create Account said:

---

Seems very judgmental. I think we should recognize differences and let people be.

---

What's "judgemental"? If the differences contradict the teachings of Christ, then why would we not call it what it is? I mean, Paul even said it's those within the church that we are to judge. If a Christian says they won't participate in a post-wedding ceremony by baking a cake, but will do the same for a remarriage, then that should be rightly called hypocritical.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that there are social consequences (a form of persecution) to having Christian-held beliefs in the mainstream of society, especially media outlets. Just because you and I may share our Christian beliefs with others on the street, at work, in our neighborhood, on social media, etc. doesn't make those beliefs any more acceptable or more importantly equally upheld in today's society than say 20, 10, or heck even 5 years ago.

---

But it's hard to say there's persecution when we can share our beliefs on the street, at work, in our neighborhoods, on social media, etc. The fact that they aren't as "acceptable" as they were 20 years ago, to me, is the backlash we've seen from faux-Christianity, cultural Christianity, Americanized Christianity, or whatever you want to call it. I think much of the backlash is due to our own hypocrisy that the world sees. When the world hears us, on Sunday, talk about an all-loving God, then on Monday see us calling transgender people "freaks", liberals or conservatives "evil" or "traitors", etc. then they begin to completely dismiss us and go on the counterattack.

Just my 2 cents though.

---

See but that's just the gasoline to the fire. The fire itself (to them) is the fundamental Christian beliefs themselves. Even non-insulting and reasonable disagreements from Christians simply cannot be reconciled by the majority of the other side; no matter how nicely or lovingly we can be. Although we need to disagree peacefully, it unfortunately doesn't seem to help a whole lot, because it has gotten to the point where atheists, the LGBT community, etc. consider you hateful and intolerant for simply disagreeing with them, no matter how you disagree, lovingly or hatefully - because it's all hate to them.

Now I'm of course generalizing when I say it's ALL hate to them, because that's simply not true that all that oppose Christianity are violent in words or action towards the religion or that ALL take it that way. I've had pleasant disagreements with gay and atheist friends and family members. However, what I have experienced on a personal level has not aligned with what the majority of their side believes and acts out upon Christians.

Quote:

---

However, what I have experienced on a personal level has not aligned with what the majority of their side believes and acts out upon Christians.

---

See, I think many Christians that engage in loving, truthful, and respectful ways could probably say the same thing. Which leads me to believe that it's not the majority of "their side" that is acting out upon Christians, but really a very vocal minority.

Quote:

---

Baking a cake for the party after the religious ceremony isn't participating in the ceremony. Clergy being forced to carry out the ceremony would be an example of forced participation. Providing a decorated snack for afterward, when providing decorated snacks is the only purpose of your business, is not persecution.

---

I don't think any Christian bakery would refuse service if someone wanted to come buy a cake "off the rack" to use in any kind of ceremony.

Marriages are much more involved than that for bakers. It usually involves several meetings with the couples and their family with tastings to select icing, flavors, and styles. You have to coordinate the custom cake decoration with the other decorators usually at the direction of the family or wedding planner so that it matches the flowers and colors used in the wedding. You usually have to transport the cake to the ceremony and assure that it is still in good condition. Sometimes the bakers are responsible for cleanup and packaging leftover cake for the guests, and therefore they have to stay until the end of the festivities. These services are all very common for high end bakers to provide to their wedding clients. To say that a baker is doing all of that but not participating in the wedding sounds ridiculous to me.

That's not participating in a religious sense. That's purely a business proposition.

Says who? I know I would feel like I was participating in more than just a business sense if it was me.

Tamu_mgm said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that there are social consequences (a form of persecution) to having Christian-held beliefs in the mainstream of society, especially media outlets. Just because you and I may share our Christian beliefs with others on the street, at work, in our neighborhood, on social media, etc. doesn't make those beliefs any more acceptable or more importantly equally upheld in today's society than say 20, 10, or heck even 5 years ago.

---

But it's hard to say there's persecution when we can share our beliefs on the street, at work, in our neighborhoods, on social media, etc. The fact that they aren't as "acceptable" as they were 20 years ago, to me, is the backlash we've seen from faux-Christianity, cultural Christianity, Americanized Christianity, or whatever you want to call it. I think much of the backlash is due to our own hypocrisy that the world sees. When the world hears us, on Sunday, talk about an all-loving God, then on Monday see us calling transgender people "freaks", liberals or conservatives "evil" or "traitors", etc. then they begin to completely dismiss us and go on the counterattack.

Just my 2 cents though.

---

See but that's just the gasoline to the fire. The fire itself (to them) is the fundamental Christian beliefs themselves. Even non-insulting and reasonable disagreements from Christians simply cannot be reconciled by the majority of the other side; no matter how nicely or lovingly we can be. Although we need to disagree peacefully, it unfortunately doesn't seem to help a whole lot, because it has gotten to the point where atheists, the LGBT community, etc. consider you hateful and intolerant for simply disagreeing with them, no matter how you disagree, lovingly or hatefully - because it's all hate to them.

Now I'm of course generalizing when I say it's ALL hate to them, because that's simply not true that all that oppose Christianity are violent in words or action towards the religion or that ALL take it that way. I've had pleasant disagreements with gay and atheist friends and family members. However, what I have experienced on a personal level has not aligned with what the majority of their side believes and acts out upon Christians.

---

Have you stopped to think that Christians still grossly outnumber atheists in this country? There is no way they go through their day every day heaping scorn on every Christian they meet. It is not hard to find folks who throw scorn on every gay person they meet or disparage every atheist they meet.

Even those who aren't intentionally rude or disrespectful often can come across as such because they know nothing of people who aren't like them and so make really silly assumptions about LGBT people and relationships or that all atheists are just "angry at God." Ignorance is a form of disrespect if you don't try to fix it.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

However, what I have experienced on a personal level has not aligned with what the majority of their side believes and acts out upon Christians.

---

See, I think many Christians that engage in loving, truthful, and respectful ways could probably say the same thing. Which leads me to believe that it's not the majority of "their side" that is acting out upon Christians, but really a very vocal minority.

---

Oh they're vocal alright, just don't agree that they're the minority being vocal!

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Says who? I know I would feel like I was participating in more than just a business sense if it was me.

---

Does the baker have any role to play in the religious ceremony? Do they have to sign off on the marriage? Or do they have to supply a good at a set price for the purposes of consumption? It doesn't matter what you "feel," it's a business transaction with no judgement on the actual ceremony.

Tamu_mgm said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

However, what I have experienced on a personal level has not aligned with what the majority of their side believes and acts out upon Christians.

---

See, I think many Christians that engage in loving, truthful, and respectful ways could probably say the same thing. Which leads me to believe that it's not the majority of "their side" that is acting out upon Christians, but really a very vocal minority.

---

Oh they're vocal alright, just don't agree that they're the minority being vocal!

---

Fair point. It's really something unprovable. To me, they are a vocal minority just like the "gasp! Target is taking off gender labels from the end of their toy/bedding aisles...grrrr!" crowd.