Not discrimination to refuse cake sale.

[Chef Jim]

12 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.)

And why would you say no thank you unless your felt they were not deserving of your good work?   Imagine if a Christian couple came to me (more about that later) asking for financial help and I said “nah, I don’t work with YOU people!!”  Now notice how my words were more “hurtful” than your polite “no thank you” but it still meant essentially the same thing?  
 

Back to the Christian couple. Our company President has a radio show on a Bay Area Christian radio station.  I spoke to a woman who called in.  Her first question was “are you Christian?”  I said I was raised that way but no longer was. She said thank you and hung up. Of course she can choose to work with whoever she likes but seems a bit silly to me to base your decision on whether I have a faith or not. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

And why would you say no thank you unless your felt they were not deserving of your good work?   Imagine if a Christian couple came to me (more about that later) asking for financial help and I said “nah, I don’t work with YOU people!!”  Now notice how my words were more “hurtful” than your polite “no thank you” but it still meant essentially the same thing?  
 

Back to the Christian couple. Our company President has a radio show on a Bay Area Christian radio station.  I spoke to a woman who called in.  Her first question was “are you Christian?”  I said I was raised that way but no longer was. She said thank you and hung up. Of course she can choose to work with whoever she likes but seems a bit silly to me to base your decision on whether I have a faith or not. 

So you believe I should be forced to design the building? Okay, that’s one person heard from. 

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So you believe I should be forced to design the building? Okay, that’s one person heard from. 

Nope. Just pointing out the fact that you feel you could say no because it will be used by people who worship a different God and for that reason only. 

[SoCal Deek]

31 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Nope. Just pointing out the fact that you feel you could say no because it will be used by people who worship a different God and for that reason only. 

Thanks but as I already said, I actually designed the buildings requested. 

[Chef Jim]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks but as I already said, I actually designed the buildings requested. 

Of course however you seem to think you could say no based on the beliefs of those that use it.  And of course you can but I hope you understand the absurdity of it.  Back to the thread.  It’s a ***** cake!!!

 

 

[sherpa]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

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

 

That is not what I said, and I'm quite certain you have no idea how foolish and uninformed you appear.

 

The Old Testament contains a number of rules those in the Judaism were to abide by.

Many of them, but not limited to, circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, rules for keeping the Sabbath, strict dietary rules and rules for atonement after breaking one, did not carry forward to the Christian faith after the sacrifice of Christ and the spreading of that faith beyond the Jews.

None of those apply to the Christian.

 

The Ten Commandments certainly did, as I pointed out using a quote from Jesus.

 

Most people are very aware of that, no matter their belief, and don't find that too hard to understand.

 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, sherpa said:

 

That is not what I said, and I'm quite certain you have no idea how foolish and uninformed you appear.

 

The Old Testament contains a number of rules those in the Judaism were to abide by.

Many of them, but not limited to, circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, rules for keeping the Sabbath, strict dietary rules and rules for atonement after breaking one, did not carry forward to the Christian faith after the sacrifice of Christ and the spreading of that faith beyond the Jews.

None of those apply to the Christian.

 

The Ten Commandments certainly did, as I pointed out using a quote from Jesus.

 

Most people are very aware of that, no matter their belief, and don't find that too hard to understand.

 

Serious question. When/where/why did homosexuality as a sin come about?  

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

That is not what I said, and I'm quite certain you have no idea how foolish and uninformed you appear.

 

The Old Testament contains a number of rules those in the Judaism were to abide by.

Many of them, but not limited to, circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, rules for keeping the Sabbath, strict dietary rules and rules for atonement after breaking one, did not carry forward to the Christian faith after the sacrifice of Christ and the spreading of that faith beyond the Jews.

None of those apply to the Christian.

 

The Ten Commandments certainly did, as I pointed out using a quote from Jesus.

 

Most people are very aware of that, no matter their belief, and don't find that too hard to understand.

 

So you made a mistake. Just admit it and move on. 

[wnyguy]

25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you made a mistake. Just admit it and move on. 

His only mistake was trying to have a serious discourse with you.

[sherpa]

34 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you made a mistake. Just admit it and move on. 

 

I made no mistake.

Your inability to understand what was said is not someone else's mistake.

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

His only mistake was trying to have a serious discourse with you.

He wasn't trying to say anything to me. He was replying to someone else. 

 

You are an idiot 🤣

Just now, sherpa said:

 

I made no mistake.

Your inability to understand what was said is not someone else's mistake.

Twice. You have made two mistakes now, the original, and now your stubborn, mindless refusal to simply acknowledge the fact. 

 

It's a dirty bird that fouls its own nest! 

[sherpa]

37 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Serious question. When/where/why did homosexuality as a sin come about?  

 

No offense, but I am not going to do other's work.

If you are interested, it is incredibly easy to find that in the Old and New Testaments.

 

[sherpa]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He wasn't trying to say anything to me. He was replying to someone else. 

 

You are an idiot 🤣

Twice. You have made two mistakes now, the original, and now your stubborn, mindless refusal to simply acknowledge the fact. 

 

It's a dirty bird that fouls its own nest! 

 

Ya. Sure.

What I said is available on the previous page, and you boldfaced it in your ignorant response.

What I said was:

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

 

Never, ever did I say that any rule in the Old Testament was not applicable to the Christian faith.

That conclusion is your idiotic and false interpretation.

That is not my problem.

 

By the way, you've already called me an "idiot," along with coward, liar, unstable and a few others that I can't recall off the top of my head, so no need to repeat yourself.

 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Ya. Sure.

What I said is available on the previous page, and you boldfaced it in your ignorant response.

What I said was:

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

 

Never, ever did I say that any rule in the Old Testament was not applicable to the Christian faith.

That conclusion is your idiotic and false interpretation.

That is not my problem.

 

By the way, you've already called me an "idiot," along with coward, liar, unstable and a few others that I can't recall off the top of my head, so no need to repeat yourself.

 

ONLY TO THAT GROUP! Laws, rules, that's what the ten commandments were. 

 

Gees, just admit you were wrong! 

[Chef Jim]

45 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

No offense, but I am not going to do other's work.

If you are interested, it is incredibly easy to find that in the Old and New Testaments.

 

 

Do you feel that it's a sin?  

[sherpa]

29 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Do you feel that it's a sin?  

 

I am never going to get into such a discussion here.

I doubt anyone on this board has worked with more homosexuals than I, and like all folks, they are individuals and different from each other.

What I strongly feel is that no religion should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for those folks, just as that group should not be forced, and thankfully aren't, to perform any religious ceremony for a host of other reasons.

 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I am never going to get into such a discussion here.

I doubt anyone on this board has worked with more homosexuals than I, and like all folks, they are individuals and different from each other.

What I strongly feel is that no religion should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for those folks, just as that group should not be forced, and thankfully aren't, to perform any religious ceremony for a host of other reasons.

 

 

You all are missing my point.  I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything.  My whole original point way back when I started this conversation was isn't it time for Christianity to modernize it's "playbook" to not look at homosexuality as a sin?  Unless you feel homosexuality is a choice (which I feel strongly it's not) how can anyone who feels that we are all made in God's imagine consider who any human chooses to love/marry is a sin?  It's just so counterintuitive to the love Jesus taught to consider it a sin.  

[sherpa]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

You all are missing my point.  I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything.  My whole original point way back when I started this conversation was isn't it time for Christianity to modernize it's "playbook" to not look at homosexuality as a sin?  Unless you feel homosexuality is a choice (which I feel strongly it's not) how can anyone who feels that we are all made in God's imagine consider who any human chooses to love/marry is a sin?  It's just so counterintuitive to the love Jesus taught to consider it a sin.  

 

I am not missing your point.

You are asking me to voice a judgement on someone else's behavior, and I am not going to do that. It is warned against time and time again in the Bible.

Regarding changing the playbook, there are ways to interpret things that govern Christian faith that are mentioned in the New Testament.

If one interprets those a certain way, it is not up for "modernization." 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I am not missing your point.

You are asking me to voice a judgement on someone else's behavior, and I am not going to do that. It is warned against time and time again in the Bible.

Regarding changing the playbook, there are ways to interpret things that govern Christian faith that are mentioned in the New Testament.

If one interprets those a certain way, it is not up for "modernization." 

 

I'm not sure I understand your last point.  Are there different ways to interpret whether or not homosexuality is a sin?  

[sherpa]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I'm not sure I understand your last point.  Are there different ways to interpret whether or not homosexuality is a sin?  

 

Read what is there yourself, and you can interpret it for yourself.

Obviously there are different views.

What I know is that the church I belong to, which is a mainstream Christian Protestant faith, doesn't perform the ceremony for a gay couple, and doesn't restrict anyone from the regular services, and I'm OK with that, because I have no interest in people's personal lives nor in judging such matters.

[nedboy7]

As New Testament Scholar Daniel Kirk has pointed out, Christians today would do well by the tradition of the apostles and our current witness in the world to recognize that theological abstractions aside, God has already clearly embraced LGBTQ+ people into full communion, and it is now the church’s responsibility to simply honor that reality and rejoice (Luke 15).

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/storiedtheology/2016/01/30/embracing-the-gentiles/

[sherpa]

19 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

As New Testament Scholar Daniel Kirk has pointed out, Christians today would do well by the tradition of the apostles and our current witness in the world to recognize that theological abstractions aside, God has already clearly embraced LGBTQ+ people into full communion, and it is now the church’s responsibility to simply honor that reality and rejoice (Luke 15).

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/storiedtheology/2016/01/30/embracing-the-gentiles/

 

You are referencing Luke 15 for some reason, which is a chapter about welcoming after repentance.

[nedboy7]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

You are referencing Luke 15 for some reason, which is a chapter about welcoming after repentance.

 

It's an interesting read. One I agree with.  I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people.  This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders.  And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple.  They are not participating in the wedding.  They are making a cake.  And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination.  Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it. 

[nedboy7]

Two features of the law make clear that Colorado’s law does not coerce artists to express a message with which they disagree.

First, no artist has to open a business to the public in the first place. Most writers, painters and other artists never do; they pick their subjects and leave it at that. The photographer Annie Leibovitz, for example, does not offer to take photographs of anyone who offers to pay her fee but chooses her subjects. She is perfectly free to photograph only white people or only Buddhists.

But if Ms. Leibovitz were to open a portrait photography business that offered to take portraits on a first-come, first-served basis to the public at large, as many corporate photography studios do, she could not turn away subjects just because they were Black or Christian. Her photographic work would be just as expressive. But the choice to benefit from the public marketplace comes with the legal obligation to equally serve members of the public. And requiring businesses that offer expressive services in the public marketplace to follow the same rules as all other businesses does not violate the First Amendment.

Second, even businesses open to the public are free to define the content of what they sell. A Christmas store can sell only Christmas items without running afoul of public accommodations laws. It need not stock Hanukkah candles or Kwanzaa cards. But it cannot put a sign on its doors saying, “We don’t serve Jews” or “No Blacks allowed.”

303 Creative argues that it is not turning away same-sex couples because they are gay, but because it objects to the message that making a wedding website for them would convey. The company has, however, asked the court to declare its right to refuse to make any website for a same-sex couple’s wedding, even if its content is identical to one it would design for a straight couple. According to this line of argument, the company could refuse a gay couple even a site that merely announced the time and location of the wedding and recommended places to stay.

Colorado’s law doesn’t dictate the content of what a business sells. 303 Creative is free to post on all the websites it designs, “The Bible condemns gay marriage.” And by the same token, it could refuse to design a site that says, “The Bible blesses gay marriage,” if it would not design that website for anyone. In that case, the decision would not be discrimination based on the customer’s identity, but a permissible decision to define the product it sells.

303 Creative has plenty of freedom to speak or not speak as it wishes. It need not serve the public and it need not design wedding websites featuring content it would not sell to anyone. But the First Amendment does not give it an exemption from laws requiring equal treatment of customers simply because its service is “expressive.”

Otherwise, interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contain some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group. The First Amendment protects the right to have and express bigoted views, but it doesn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.

[SoCal Deek]

I apologize…I had to step away to have a life. But I don’t believe I ever got an answer:

 

Should society force me to design the building? 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I apologize…I had to step away to have a life. But I don’t believe I ever got an answer:

 

Should society force me to design the building? 

I answered. 

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

I answered. 

Other than you. 🙄

[Chef Jim]

36 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Other than you. 🙄

Oh…..I thought that was directed at me. LOL. 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Oh…..I thought that was directed at me. LOL. 

Nope…you can go back to arguing with BillSy about how Trump caused, started, and ultimately lost the war in Afghanistan. Good luck with that. 

[KDIGGZ]

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

 

It's an interesting read. One I agree with.  I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people.  This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders.  And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple.  They are not participating in the wedding.  They are making a cake.  And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination.  Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it. 

What if it was a cake for a Satan worship party? Would you still force them to bake the cake? Or is it a case by case basis? And who decides?

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

What if it was a cake for a Satan worship party? Would you still force them to bake the cake? Or is it a case by case basis? And who decides?

 

Only if it's Devil's Food.

 

You keep settin' up and I'll keep knockin' 'em down. 

[Westside]

48 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Oh…..I thought that was directed at me. LOL. 

It’s not all about you! 😁

[Chef Jim]

9 minutes ago, Westside said:

It’s not all about you! 😁

 

Then why am I here?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

It's an interesting read. One I agree with.  I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people.  This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders.  And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple.  They are not participating in the wedding.  They are making a cake.  And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination.  Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it. 

I’d bake the cake, been grateful for the opportunity to serve, and upsold the blueberry scones if possible.   But I’m not them.  

 

Perhaps before supporting oppressive, punitive action against the business owner, you should consider attempting to understand them—what they think, why they think it, and why their perspective is important to them.  Maybe you’ll gain a better understanding of them, and maybe through dialogue and shared respect, they’ll come to see your perspective.  Or maybe you’ll come to see theirs.  Or, maybe neither. 
 

After all, as you said “it’s a ***** cake.”.  
 

 

[nedboy7]

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

I’d bake the cake, been grateful for the opportunity to serve, and upsold the blueberry scones if possible.   But I’m not them.  

 

Perhaps before supporting oppressive, punitive action against the business owner, you should consider attempting to understand them—what they think, why they think it, and why their perspective is important to them.  Maybe you’ll gain a better understanding of them, and maybe through dialogue and shared respect, they’ll come to see your perspective.  Or maybe you’ll come to see theirs.  Or, maybe neither. 
 

After all, as you said “it’s a ***** cake.”.  
 

 

 

It is not punitive action to demand people to respect laws concerning discrimination.  It is one of the fundamental requirements of having a civilized society imo.  I am like you.  I would never let a person's orientations effect how I serve them at my business.  I have had a few so called "tolerant non-racist" liberals that ask me how I can provide services to Trumpers.  I am really taken back by this question and I always tell them I take pride in serving everyone, especially people I do not agree with with or maybe find odd.  I have no problem with religion or sexual orientation.  I think this woman is an exception.  I do not know a single person of faith that would discriminate against a homosexual.

[nedboy7]

5 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

What if it was a cake for a Satan worship party? Would you still force them to bake the cake? Or is it a case by case basis? And who decides?

 

I don't know if Satan worshipers are recognized as a legitimate group?  It's a slippery slope, I agree.  But to have a working society you need laws that might sometimes be uncomfortable?  My thinking is if I open a business, I know the laws.  And while it would suck to serve someone you do not agree with, that is what you sign up for as long as they are respectful and law abiding.  Am I wrong on this? 

[KDIGGZ]

2 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I don't know if Satan worshipers are recognized as a legitimate group?  It's a slippery slope, I agree.  But to have a working society you need laws that might sometimes be uncomfortable?  My thinking is if I open a business, I know the laws.  And while it would suck to serve someone you do not agree with, that is what you sign up for as long as they are respectful and law abiding.  Am I wrong on this? 

Yes there is a church of Satan, it's a real thing. As a Christian I couldn't imagine spending 4 hours working on a Satan cake. They want blood on it and horns and upside down cross. So I can't open a nice bakery to support my family because someone might come to me and force me to make a cake I can't morally stomach? There's nothing wrong with refusing to work on something you don't agree with. Plenty of other bakeries who would probably think it would be fun. I have a friend that does scary makeup for like Halloween and plays and stuff and she is into that kind of thing for example.

[SoCal Deek]

Shouldn’t this go both ways? Let’s say I go in a store and tell the clerk that I’m buying a Christmas gift for my wife. Then upon checkout I say thank you and Merry Christmas to the clerk…should society force her to say Merry Christmas back? Obviously not….and we don’t. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[Tiberius]

18 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I apologize…I had to step away to have a life. But I don’t believe I ever got an answer:

 

Should society force me to design the building? 

I answered! I said no 

[nedboy7]

12 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

Yes there is a church of Satan, it's a real thing. As a Christian I couldn't imagine spending 4 hours working on a Satan cake. They want blood on it and horns and upside down cross. So I can't open a nice bakery to support my family because someone might come to me and force me to make a cake I can't morally stomach? There's nothing wrong with refusing to work on something you don't agree with. Plenty of other bakeries who would probably think it would be fun. I have a friend that does scary makeup for like Halloween and plays and stuff and she is into that kind of thing for example.

 

I sense you are trying to make an argument to justify discrimination. 

You do not understand the case I think. 

You do not have the right to deny service to someone based on certain things.  But you do not have to put ***** blood on the cake. 

The woman can deny making a cake that offends her freedom of speech.  But she cant deny making a cake she would make for anyone else. 

For example she can deny to make a cake that has a giant penis on it.  But she cant deny making an ordinary cake just cause they are gay. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by nedboy7