Ashers Baking Company: 'Gay cake' row could end up in court

[Ben Kenobi]

NON GAY COUPLES HAVE CHILDREN ALL THE TIME that are not necessarily born from them.

All children have a mother and father, rah. The state has an interest in these children and providing for them, the best home for them possible with their mother and father being married together.

How is this any different then gay couple with children.

Does this change the fact that these children have a mother and a father?

Why should the children of gay couples be protected just like others.

Because they are not the children of this couple, rah.

Protection of spouses is also no different between gays and non gays. Should the gays have any less protection.

Should you have an ongoing obligation to children and to a husband or wife that you no longer love? Or is 'falling out of love with them', sufficient to sever your ties and release you from your obligation?

See, this is the problem, rah. If you argue that marriage is just about the love that you presently feel for someone, then I cannot see how you can bind someone who has fallen out of love with that same person. If you argue that marriage is just a 'contract', contracts are broken all the time.

But expect to be called a bigot when you go on an internet site and proclaim your beliefs.

I don't see how someone who claims to be a Christian would label Christian teachings as 'bigotry'. I can understand an atheist saying this.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nestor.

the danish church wasn't forced to recognise gay marriage. It's authorities decided to allow it.

This was your argument. This was false. The Danish Parliament passed it over the objection of the priests in the Danish Lutheran Church.

If the Danish Parliament can do this to the Lutheran church, what is stopping them from doing the same to all the other Christian churches?

Also, any priest that objects can refuse to do so.

How long before the Danish Parliament strips the ordination of any priest who refuses?

Again, if this was about 'live and let live', why is the argument, "this is 2012, and not medieval times'.

Does this sound like 'live and let live' or does it sound like, "we will force you to do it."

Except you also want to forbid gays to participate in non-christian activities.

Are you arguing that Christians should not have to have civil recognition of marriage? Insofar as all Christians are required to have civil recognition of their marriage, that yes indeed, it's a Christian activity.

[rah]

All children have a mother and father, rah. The state has an interest in these children and providing for them, the best home for them possible with their mother and father being married together.

Please prove this claim. You may be right over single parent families, but all the studies I've seen shows that gay couple scored no worse than regular couples.

Does this change the fact that these children have a mother and a father?

Because they are not the children of this couple, rah.

There are quite a few children in marriages that are not the children of the couple So I'll ignore that one.

Should you have an ongoing obligation to children and to a husband or wife that you no longer love? Or is 'falling out of love with them', sufficient to sever your ties and release you from your obligation?

See, this is the problem, rah. If you argue that marriage is just about the love that you presently feel for someone, then I cannot see how you can bind someone who has fallen out of love with that same person. If you argue that marriage is just a 'contract', contracts are broken all the time.

Yes you should have an obligation. That why they need recognized marriage you idiot.

I don't see how someone who claims to be a Christian would label Christian teachings as 'bigotry'. I can understand an atheist saying this.

It's a little like people who call people who criticize the president unpatriotic.
No it's trying to manage change from the inside. It's my duty as an american to point out injustices and try to correct them.

No different for a Catholic who sees injustices from other Catholics. It doesn't make me non-christian, it make me one that aspires to be better and make the church better.

[Ben Kenobi]

Please prove this claim. You may be right over single parent families, but all the studies I've seen shows that gay couple scored no worse than regular couples.

Did the studies question the parents or the children? The latest one out polled only 17 normal men and women. Does that sound like a reliable study?

There are quite a few children in marriages that are not the children of the couple I'll ignore that one.

Still doesn't change the fact that these children have a father and a mother, rah. What is the child going to think when they grow up?

Yes you should have an obligation.

Why? Why should you have an obligation to provide for someone you no longer love?

No different for a Catholic who sees injustices from other Catholics. It doesn't make me non-christian, it make me one that aspires to be better and make the church better.

So was Christ making the Church worse when he argued that marriage was designed for men and women?

[rah]

I know I shouldn't respond but
I asked you for proof and you didn't provide any.

What is an adopted child supposed to think?

Arranged marriages aren't about love but there is still an obligation so I have no idea what you're talking about.

You inferred that's what Christ meant, you have yet to post a quote where that's exactly what he said but who cares. I have never said the Church should have to perform gay marriages.
I 'm saying the church should stay out of it for those outside the church. Even our new Pope is making noises of more tolerance. I'll keep pushing to whoever will listen,

[Elok]

Elok- if the bakery had a sign outside saying 'we are a Christian bakery and our beliefs if affirmed, allow us to bake goods only for those who lead blameless lives according to the statutes and principles of our main holy books' I'd have no problem with their actions.

Of course they'd have no customers either.

You're missing the point--or, at least, my point. It's not the customers per se, or rather it hasn't been in all the cases I've heard of so far. They specifically object to the nature of the service, in that it requires them to affirm/support/what-have-you something they consider to be sin. I would consider it unreasonable and impractical for them to refuse to serve gays, or atheists, or communists--but not to refuse to bake cakes that say "Friends of Dorothy Forever," "God is Dead," or "Happy Birthday Josef Stalin."

Re: Persecution, I don't expect anybody to force churches to conduct gay marriages, etc. But if the only reason to oppose gay marriage is bigotry, and conservative Christians are analogous to racists, the question remains: how do we treat racists in this country? As complete pariahs, of course. If one of my coworkers were found to hate black people, s/he might remain employed with us--provided there were absolutely no incidents involving customers or my one black coworker who doesn't come to the office much--but his/her career would certainly suffer. And our racial scars (the ones from slavery/segregation, that is; the ongoing problems we mostly ignore) are mostly old and faded in this country; we're still in a righteous lather over gay rights. I don't think Eich will be unique. He'll just be the beginning.

There are many ironies in this situation. One is that conservative Christians could very well be forced into a position surprisingly similar to DADT. Another is the way the word "bigot," once applied, can dehumanize its target just as effectively as the word "******."

[Ben Kenobi]

What is an adopted child supposed to think?

That she has a mom and a dad?

Arranged marriages aren't about love but there is still an obligation so I have no idea what you're talking about.

I asked, "why is there an obligation". If love is all that matters, shouldn't a couple be able to split when one of them falls out of love with the other?

You inferred that's what Christ meant, you have yet to post a quote where that's exactly what he said

Matthew 19:4

Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one.

Seems pretty clear to me. God made men and women for a reason.

I have never said the Church should have to perform gay marriages.

Yet you're 'willing to work from the inside' to make sure that they do. Odd that. If you sincerely believed that the Church shouldn't do them, you'd leave.

I 'm saying the church should stay out of it for those outside the church.

Then why are you trying to 'work from the inside' to change things? Makes no sense to me. What does make sense is that you're going to try to change things from within.

Even our new Pope is making noises of more tolerance. I'll keep pushing to whoever will listen,

So 'leaving us be' was a lie. Gotcha.

[Ben Kenobi]

But if the only reason to oppose gay marriage is bigotry, and conservative Christians are analogous to racists, the question remains: how do we treat racists in this country? As complete pariahs, of course.

Spot on, Elok. Spot on.

What is happening in this thread, Elok? Gay people are trying to crush the man and his business. To drive him out of his livelihood and bankrupt him. Does that spell tolerance?

Then you have 'Christians' like Rah who are trying to change things from within and deprive Catholics of our churches that we built.

There are many ironies in this situation. One is that conservative Christians could very well be forced into a position surprisingly similar to DADT.

What makes you think you'll be spared, Elok?

I love how you're drawing a bright line between the people that will be crushed, 'so-called, conservative, bigot! Christians', and yourself, 'not bigot, GOOD Christians.

You'll have to make a decision, Elok. Which side are you on? Are you willing to give your life for your faith, or are you willing to give up all that 'faith' nonsense when the chips are down?

I can't choose for you, Elok.

[Elok]

Non-American polytubbies should also note that our sole example of American social conservatism on here is BK, and he's not exactly a representative sample. Quite apart from not actually being American, he's more of a caricature of conservatism. Like Stephen Colbert, only less likeable and apparently not kidding. Also, the persistent dishonesty is not a particularly Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Conservative trait. Anyway, don't be fooled into thinking American conservatives are as cartoonish as our resident cartoon.

[MrFun]

I know I just said don't argue with him but when he starts spewing such stupidity I can't resist sometimes. I know I should resist.

I can't tell you how much better my blood pressure is, since I've put BK on Ignore.

[Elok]

I'd be willing to bet that the faster that 1) and 2) happen, then the less than 3) will happen.

Not that simple, as long as it's seen as a zero-sum game by both sides. I really don't think carving out narrow exemptions--can't be required to go directly against conscience (gay cake), or be fired purely for religious beliefs or political activity which don't affect one's ability to do the job (Eich)--will start a new age of anti-gay persecution or discrimination. This day has been a long time coming; the sexual revolution fifty years ago made it more or less inevitable. Churches are facing empty pews and shortages of clergy, and they've lost the fight on gay marriage. I don't think they're going to explode in popularity just because the victors were gracious (not that I think they will be). If there are more Eichs, OTOH, I think the gay rights movement may well lose support. Americans may not be terribly pious anymore, but they're still quite fond of religious freedom, and much of the present support for gay rights is built on IMO rather evanescent enthusiasm.

[C0ckney]

elok: i think you've raised some interesting points in this thread. however i disagree with you on several issues.

i think the distinction you make between refusing service to homosexuals and refusing to make a particular item because of its content is a fine one and it's hard to see how it could be applied in a consistent fashion. where is the line in this case for example: the message? the 'queerspace' logo? bert and earnie?

you try to draw a distinction between bigotry and 'judaeo-christian belief' yet it seems clear that what we're talking about is bigotry, based on 'judaeo-christian belief'. i would go further in fact and say that most of the prejudice that homosexuals face, in a western context, today, is an artifact of judaeo-christian belief. i don't think that sincerity is important here either. i'm sure the guys on stromfront are very sincere in their beliefs, but that doesn't mean we should defend them.

the idea that this will cause big problems for christians seems a little strange to me. although i accept your view that it's difficult to read the bible (or koran) in a way that finds homosexuality acceptable, i don't see why this need be such a big problem. firstly, a secularist would say, so what? the bible was written for people in a very rude state of civilisation and so of course does not, and cannot, have any bearing on modern social questions; or in other words, welcome to modern society. secondly, christianity is, and indeed is strong because it is, adaptable to changing political and social realities. the bible is a very large book with lots of different messages, and christians can choose, as many in fact have chosen, to quietly ignore or play down the passages about homosexuality and focus on other aspects.

[C0ckney]

i think also that some of the things you're saying here about the decline of churches, and of their influences echo our discussion a few weeks ago. however, they seem to reflect more what i was saying; you took a much more positive stance, talking about a revival and so on. has something changed? or have i read it wrong?

[PLATO]

christianity is, and indeed is strong because it is, adaptable to changing political and social realities. the bible is a very large book with lots of different messages, and christians can choose, as many in fact have chosen, to quietly ignore or play down the passages about homosexuality and focus on other aspects.

I differ on this point somewhat. I do not choose to ignore that the bible says homosexuality is a sin any more than I choose to ignore that lying is a sin. The bible is very clear that God does not draw distinction among sins...a sin is a sin. However, Jesus also makes it clear that love of your neighbor was the new commandment. To me, anyway, that overrides the harshness of the old testament. It is not so much a matter of "ignoring" as it is emphasizing the true message.

This view does not conflict with a secular world where religion is protected. I am free to choose to "accept" what I want, but I am not free to hate my brother for his choice.

So...the baker can easily maintain his belief that homosexuality is wrong and easily make his brothers cake out of love for him. This brings the "sinner" closer to the "Christian". This should be the goal of the Christian...to lead by example and counsel when requested. As is, the baker is causing more of a rift between "Christian" and "Sinner" and Satan smiles...

[rah]

So 'leaving us be' was a lie. Gotcha.

I have to laugh. I have never said that I want the church to marry gays. I have always supported their right not to. It is my right as a Christian to follow the golden rule and try to get other Christians to do the same.
And you play this like a trump card claiming "see I win". If leaving you be is your ultimate desire, you should practice what you preach and let others be. You are a hypocrite Douche.