Quote:

---

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.

---

Eh, it goes both ways at least. In my experience I would say atheists are in general more scornful.

As far as the cake thing goes, I agree with those saying it is ridiculous. I'm generally in the camp that the law should not dictate who a business has to serve. I wouldn't call it Christian persecution, though, because a business owner is subject to public accommodation laws regardless of their religion.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

The same argument could be made regarding the location. After all, people can get married anywhere and someone is just "renting" the facility. Therefore, any church that marries non-members on the grounds must marry anyone that asks. Under your standard only 3 people "participate" in the wedding: the two (for now) people getting married and the person performing the ceremony.

To be ridiculous about it, you could use the scenario of catering a Voodoo animal sacrifice. You're not actually participating by providing food for the occasion, and it is legal to slaughter your own animals. Should a caterer be allowed to refuse to cater for an animal sacrifice ritual if it violates their religious beliefs? Under your defnitions, they wouldn't be allowed to refuse.

---

FYI, it says you are replying to me, but it's actually Watson's post you are replying to.

As for the 1st paragraph, my wife and I were talking about this last week. I'd have no problem if my church allowed a same-sex marriage to be performed there. I would simply add the condition that members of our staff will not take part in the ceremony. I'm not too concerned about physical buildings.

As for the 2nd paragraph, that's not my "definitions". I absolutely believe a person should be free to refuse to service to anyone for any reason without government interference. Yes, they should be allowed to refuse to cater the voodoo ceremony. I've not argued that anyone should be forced to do anything.

Sorry, I'm bad at replying

Quote:

---

As for the 1st paragraph, my wife and I were talking about this last week. I'd have no problem if my church allowed a same-sex marriage to be performed there. I would simply add the condition that members of our staff will not take part in the ceremony. I'm not too concerned about physical buildings.

---

I'm with you on the building just being a building, but I find it hard to think of a stronger endorsement of a marriage by a church than having it in the church building. Short of actually performing the ceremony or putting it in the bulletin, anyway. I think the Catholics and Mormons are spot on about this.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

As for the 1st paragraph, my wife and I were talking about this last week. I'd have no problem if my church allowed a same-sex marriage to be performed there. I would simply add the condition that members of our staff will not take part in the ceremony. I'm not too concerned about physical buildings.

---

I'm with you on the building just being a building, but I find it hard to think of a stronger endorsement of a marriage by a church than having it in the church building. Short of actually performing the ceremony or putting it in the bulletin, anyway. I think the Catholics and Mormons are spot on about this.

---

Maybe it's just the construction of our church, which is more a cafegymatorium than anything, but I wouldn't see an issue. We rent our facilities out to various groups all the time. I don't think anyone would even notice it was being used for a same-sex wedding.

I disagree. A building is not a building. An orthodox temple is a sacred place that has been consecrated to God.

Well, even by your definition Retired's building and my buidling are just buildings

I would hope that you would have more reverence for your place of worship than to treat them as "just buildings". Would you use one as a bathroom? Is it impious to have a death metal concert that professes satanic or profane things? It's not "just a building", even if it is "just a church".

Out of curiosity, but would you object to a Zumba class being held in the church during the week? Where does one draw the line on what would be acceptable?

My church has bathrooms, and I don't use other buildings (even broken down ones) as bathrooms. So I guess I don't see the connection.

I like non-Satanic heavy metal, so I probably wouldn't complain. As I said above though, I would assume any activity held in the church building has been endorsed by the church body. So I would avoid things my church wouldn't want to endorse.

Absolutely. The temple is for the divine services. It's a building devoted to administering the mysteries.

That's what parish halls are for. Which sort of gets back to the distinction of the service vs the reception (not that I'm sympathetic to accommodation laws).

if the building is rented out for non-member weddings to the public, I don't think you have much to stand on when there is a wedding you don't like being performed in your public event space/sacred worship area as your religious views being persecuted.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

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.

---

you've actually made your stance look worse. the vast majority of the work related to the baking of the cake is even more removed from the ceremony itself. at this point, it's just distaste of gay people as clients that would make you refuse.

So, according to you, being involved in the planning, execution, and clean up of an event is less participatory than just providing food for someone to come pick up from your store. Sometime I feel like the internet is bizzaro world

Dr. Watson said:

---

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.

---

I don't have time to get involved in the discussion about what constitutes participation in a religious event, but I'd like to point out that you know seem to agree that forcing someone to participate in a religious event does violate their civil liberties. That's progress.

Quote:

---

So, according to you, being involved in the planning, execution, and clean up of an event is less participatory than just providing food for someone to come pick up from your store. Sometime I feel like the internet is bizzaro world

---

Yes, somehow people conflating the planning, execution and clean up of a baked good is somehow equivalent to the planning, execution and clean up of a wedding ceremony. The internet is bizzaro world.

Quote:

---

I don't have time to get involved in the discussion about what constitutes participation in a religious event,

---

Very odd...because this is literally the crux of the discussion since you made your initial statement.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

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.

---

YES

It drives me absolutely insane that people do not understand the difference between going to a fridge in a bakery and grabbing a cake and taking it home to celebrate and ORDERING CUSTOM FREAKING ARTWORK. The judge who ruled said that baking/cake decorating wasn't artistic enough to be considered under the ruling and he's freaking idiot POS. I'd like to see the wedding cake that moron puts together.

there's my rant. it could be longer, but I kinda feel like I'm drowning at work, so I'm gonna cut it a wee bit short.

And My pastor would probably rather be stabbed to death than allow a zumba class in the sanctuary. The school gym, sure...but come on.

Quote:

---

Very odd...because this is literally the crux of the discussion since you made your initial statement.

---

Agreed. I think you have to consider what the "vendor" considers participation in a religious ceremony. After all, you could have a JP marry two male atheists. To the 3 main actors, this is not a religious ceremony at all. However, my church hosts weddings, and my pastor or associate pastor will perform the ceremony for non-members on a rare basis. This happens maybe once or twice per year. To you, it would make perfect sense for that wedding party to sue my church if we refused to allow them to marry in our facility or even refused the services of my pastor during the "non-religious" ceremony. They might even win.

In that entirely hypothetical but plausible scenario, that wedding party and the State would be forcing our church to accept their definition of a "religious ceremony". However, since our own religion defines "religious ceremony", the State would be forcibly overruling our religious beliefs. That is textbook persecution. I feel the bakers situation is similar but only a half-step removed. Why doesn't the baker get to have free exercise of their religion to determine what consistitutes "participation in a religious ceremony'? What authority does the secular government have to make that determination?

Also, to go back to the original topics, we as Americans are spoiled.
I posted Hans Fiene's article on the subject a while back, he's very eloquent.

Anywho, in our place of abundance, what is the best way to help those in Syria and other countries in the ME who are persecuted? In Iran (also the catechism has been translated to farsi now!) ?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So, according to you, being involved in the planning, execution, and clean up of an event is less participatory than just providing food for someone to come pick up from your store. Sometime I feel like the internet is bizzaro world

---

we're talking about the preparation of a cake and the details that go with that. you act like the baker is the one leading the vows.

Quote:

---

It drives me absolutely insane that people do not understand the difference between going to a fridge in a bakery and grabbing a cake and taking it home to celebrate and ORDERING CUSTOM FREAKING ARTWORK.

---

No one is misunderstanding the different....the difference is actually irrelevant. In the end, whether custom or not, a cake is being ordered. People feel like putting the word "wedding" in front of "cake" somehow metaphysically transforms the cake into something other than a cake and this new thing now requires the baker's approval of said wedding.

Quote:

---

Anywho, in our place of abundance, what is the best way to help those in Syria and other countries in the ME who are persecuted? In Iran (also the catechism has been translated to farsi now!) ?

---

You should look into Preemptive Love. They go into the conflict zones to take supplies to families that are literally running for their lives. It is amazing work that they do.

Which is why the law shouldn't make that determination. If you personally think it violates your religion you should be allowed to not take the order.

Just like how pop stars are refusing to play at a Trump inauguration.

Why is it a "right" to receive non-necessary services? Especially when others can step in place and do it instead.

No, the word wedding doesnt. The word CUSTOM does. When a person is specifically working for a specific event or client, crafting and creating and aesthetically pleasing and appetizing product, which will represent them, then yes, they have every right to object to the event, the client, the type of decoration, and anything else they want regarding their work.

they cannot however, put a box of cupcakes on the counter and say $1 a cupcake for everyone but the gays.


These are two different things. Drastically different things.

Quote:

---

Why doesn't the baker get to have free exercise of their religion to determine what consistitutes "participation in a religious ceremony'? What authority does the secular government have to make that determination?

---

Because the baker isn't getting married. The business transaction doesn't include "and please affirm my wedding according to your religion". A custom cake and money are exchanged.

The role of the government, in this case, is to protect individuals from discrimination in the market place. One doesn't get the right to break laws because of your religion.

It all seems very odd to me that people equate selling a cake to someone with approval of that persons life choices.

Quote:

---

The role of the government, in this case, is to protect individuals from discrimination in the market place.

---

It is? #1 on the list should be fat and ugly people then. They're probably the largest group discriminated against in the market place.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Also, to go back to the original topics, we as Americans are spoiled.
I posted Hans Fiene's article on the subject a while back, he's very eloquent.

Anywho, in our place of abundance, what is the best way to help those in Syria and other countries in the ME who are persecuted? In Iran (also the catechism has been translated to farsi now!) ?

---

Pray, support local missionaries, get to know Syrians and Iranians (American is very diverse)

Quote:

---

No, the word wedding doesnt. The word CUSTOM does. When a person is specifically working for a specific event or client, crafting and creating and aesthetically pleasing and appetizing product, which will represent them, then yes, they have every right to object to the event, the client, the type of decoration, and anything else they want regarding their work.

---

No, they don't. They have the right to object to the actual design components...like they are allowed to say "i will not decorate your cake with *****es". IMO, they don't have the right to deliver a product that one could not tell is for a gay couple (because it looks like something they would make for a straight couple) unless you read the names of the people on it.

Quote:

---

It is? #1 on the list should be fat and ugly people then. They're probably the largest group discriminated against in the market place.

---

I was making a general statement in regards to his post. I wasn't making a global declaration on the role of governments. We have specific laws enacted that give more detail.

Quote:

---

Which is why the law shouldn't make that determination. If you personally think it violates your religion you should be allowed to not take the order.

Just like how pop stars are refusing to play at a Trump inauguration.

Why is it a "right" to receive non-necessary services? Especially when others can step in place and do it instead.

---

Because there's always someone else that can step in? In every market? And there was never a time when a people group was denied by say...a majority of the businesses in operation? Even here in the US?

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Which is why the law shouldn't make that determination. If you personally think it violates your religion you should be allowed to not take the order.

Just like how pop stars are refusing to play at a Trump inauguration.

Why is it a "right" to receive non-necessary services? Especially when others can step in place and do it instead.

---

Because there's always someone else that can step in? In every market? And there was never a time when a people group was denied by say...a majority of the businesses in operation? Even here in the US?

---

Yes, in ALL gay wedding cases. Yes. No. No.