Not discrimination to refuse cake sale.

[Chef Jim]

15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It’s the same, but different. Why? 
 

Because it is. Religious faith is powerful. So is the US Government.  
 

 

Which to some is a religion. 

[daz28]

2 hours ago, LDD said:

If they bake a big cake for an obese couple are they complicit in the sin of gluttony??

The bible is a big enough book that through selective interpretation, one could probably find a way to back all kinds of discrimination quite easily.  I guess the Supreme Court will just handle these on a case per case basis, unless they just want to roll with the all selective interpretations matter principle.  

[B-Man]

 

 

MORE:

 

 

Custom printer has decided to deny service to Gays Against Groomers, saying they’re anti-LGBTQ

 

 

Wasn’t it just a week ago that liberals on Twitter were arguing that a Christian website designer was supposed to make a custom website for a same-sex wedding? That’s like denying service to someone because they’re black. In other words, bake the cake.

 

We’re learning Monday that Printful, a company that makes custom-printed gear like T-shirts and caps, has put out a statement that it had suspended Gays Against Groomers from using its services. “On the surface, this organization claims to protect children from abuse. However, after taking a closer look at their platform, we found the content they share is homophobic, transphobic misinformation that harms LGBTQ+ communities,” it wrote.

 

Gays Against Groomers is homophobic. “Let us be clear that we do not condone child abuse.”

 

 

OK, you want to be clear? Print some Gays Against Groomers T-shirts !

 

 

 

Denying service to a group composed of gays and lesbians? Where’s the outrage?

 

You may not agree with them, but Gays Against Groomers IS part of the LGBTQ community.

 

 

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/12/12/custom-printer-has-decided-to-deny-service-to-gays-against-groomers-saying-theyre-anti-lgbtq/

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

Which to some is a religion. 

Exactly!!  
 

At the risk of drawing the ire of some of our more socially conscious companions here…most successful government programs are based on the theory of the collective good, doing your part to help someone less fortunate, tithing on-an-it’s-never-quite-enough basis, making one believe they are inherently flawed or contributing to eternal damnation of the planetary/societal type. 
 

 

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Exactly!!  
 

At the risk of drawing the ire of some of our more socially conscious companions here…most successful government programs are based on the theory of the collective good, doing your part to help someone less fortunate, tithing on-an-it’s-never-quite-enough basis, making one believe they are inherently flawed or contributing to eternal damnation of the planetary/societal type. 
 

 

 

What are these so called "successful" government programs?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

What are these so called "successful" government programs?  

From my perspective, or theirs? 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

From my perspective, or theirs? 

 

Well yours seeing you mentioned it. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Well yours seeing you mentioned it. 

Welp, what I meant was successful from the perspective of the government.

 

I'd say the progressive income tax scale has been pretty successful for the US Government, in some cases convincing average Americans that up to 37% of one's income should be sent to the government for the greater good.  Or, where 37% is insufficient, and folks clamor for someone else to pay 40, 50+ %.  Or where people save money on tax today, fund an IRA, and pay tax on the money saved and the gain in the future.  Or when an individual saves some after-tax money, buys some stock and gets doinked with a Capital Gain tax. 

 

There's others....the Church of Climate Science...involvement in some foreign wars...and so on. 

 

 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

The bible is a big enough book that through selective interpretation, one could probably find a way to back all kinds of discrimination quite easily.  I guess the Supreme Court will just handle these on a case per case basis, unless they just want to roll with the all selective interpretations matter principle.  

 

Have to be careful if using the Bible.

Remember, the Bible consists of two completely separate books.

The Old Testament is the story of a culture, the Jews.

It contains a lot of rules, called "The Law," that applied only to that group.

 

The New Testament is the story of an individual, who fulfilled the law, and believers are no longer bound by Old Testament Jewish Law.

The guidance in the New Testament is quite different.

[Tiberius]

The ten commandments don't apply to Christians? 

 

Huh? 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

The ten commandments don't apply to Christians? 

 

Huh? 

 

Please.

 

What did Jesus say in the New Testament?

 

Matthew 5:19.

     "So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Maybe not to you, though I doubt you are even aware, but think it's pretty clear.

[daz28]

7 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I understand what you're saying and agreed with it at first.  The difference is if the bakeshop bakes a cake for a convicted murderer to celebrate his release of prison the are not participating in the sin of murder.  However baking a cake for the wedding is participating in the sin of homosexuality.   It's a big difference.  

More importantly, let's tie this to housing discrimination.  The cake decision is based on:

 

Justice Clarence Thomas, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, accepted this argument and said that forcing the baker to make a cake would be impermissible compelled speech. He wrote: “Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are ‘weddings’ and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to ‘bear witness to [these] fact[s],’ or to ‘affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees.’” 

 

Now, here's where the bible stands on homosexuality:

The Bible says: “Men who practice homosexuality . . . will not inherit God’s Kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10)

 

It seems that renting half your duplex, and witnessing this sin day in and day out, would be more of a sin than baking a cake for a wedding. 

 

If you want to really complicate this matter, look to conscientious objection to military draft, or even paying taxes that support a defense budget.  This is EXTREMELY more complex than the few nonsense posts here have even touched on.  

[daz28]

48 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Please.

 

What did Jesus say in the New Testament?

 

Matthew 5:19.

     "So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Maybe not to you, though I doubt you are even aware, but think it's pretty clear.

Just a note that what Jesus said is actually what Jesus was believed to have said AT LEAST 20 years after his death by the most conservative of estimates.  I find that the precision of the statements is AMAZINGLY concise, especially considering it was translated again to English in 1611.  

[Tiberius]

12 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Please.

 

What did Jesus say in the New Testament?

 

Matthew 5:19.

     "So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Maybe not to you, though I doubt you are even aware, but think it's pretty clear.

So the rules DO apply to Christians unlike what you said, 

[Tiberius]

14 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Have to be careful if using the Bible.

Remember, the Bible consists of two completely separate books.

The Old Testament is the story of a culture, the Jews.

It contains a lot of rules, called "The Law," that applied only to that group.

 

 

🤠

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So the rules DO apply to Christians unlike what you said, 

You clearly don’t understand the basic plot of Christianity. 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly don’t understand the basic plot of Christianity. 

I know enough to call BS. 

 

That's all I need.  

[SoCal Deek]

I posed this to Chef yesterday but not sure that I got an answer. As an Architect and Christian should I be forced to design a synagogue or a mosque? Just like the baker, mine is a creative field. And just like the baker I’m not promoting or broadcasting a hatred for anyone by those actions. I’m just politely and privately telling the perspective client “no thank you”. (In real life I actually designed both.)

[Chef Jim]

23 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly don’t understand the basic plot of Christianity. 

Plot??  So it is a work of fiction. 😁

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I posed this to Chef yesterday but not sure that I got an answer. As an Architect and Christian should I be forced to design a synagogue or a mosque? Just like the baker, mine is a creative field. And just like the baker I’m not promoting or broadcasting a hatred for anyone by those actions. I’m just politely and privately telling the perspective client “no thank you”. (In real life I actually designed both.)

I'd say there is a major difference between the work involved in a cake and a religious structure, one is a major work of construction, the other is a simple cash and carry exchange. Are gays to be excluded from cash and carry businesses?