Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Just so there is no confusion for you Rick, I will put it into a scenario.

There are two couples one heterosexual (Sam and Samantha) and one homosexual (Sam and Sam), both go to buy a wedding cake with the exact same message on it "Sam & Sam". The cake maker makes the cake with the message for the heterosexual couple but does not for the homosexual couple. Obviously the message is the same in both instances, it is not offensive in anyway shape or form, so we must conclude that the message is not the reason for the discrimination, but instead that couples sexual orientation that is being discriminated against.

There are two scenarios that happened.

The first, is what Kurieuo mentioned in the OP. It's about an Irish baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay man. It wasn't a wedding cake. The man wanted a cake with Bert and Ernie, and a pro gay marriage message.

The second, is a baker in Oregon who was fined around $135k, because they refused to make a "wedding" cake for a lesbian couple.

In the first instance, the man refused to bake the cake because of the message.

In the second, the bakers refused to bake the cake because they believed gay weddings go against their beliefs.

Both are privately run businesses.

In both instances, I believe the business owners should be able to do business according to their beliefs/conscience, without government punishment.

Edit***

Here's a link to the story about the Oregon bakers.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... cake-case/

As you can see from the article, the bakers have no problem selling cakes to homosexuals. It's the message that the specific cake represented, that they had an issue with.

And since the bakers had no problem selling their products to homosexuals, we must logically conclude that it wasn't discrimination based on the sexual orientation of the customer, but based on the message.

K wrote:

D220 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:We're talking about cakes here. Now you're moving the goal posts. In cases of violence, you might recall what I wrote a few posts back. This isn't a debating game to me.

I often design websites for people. If a person came to me, wanting me to provide them with a website that is an activist gay website, and I refused, what should my punishment be Dan?

Under the anti discrimination laws you could be charged and rightfully so.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employer ... ation-laws

But you could just give no reason for turning it down and that would be acceptable.

Notwithstanding I don't see any discrimination against a person, you'd consider my non-compliance to create an activist gay website as discrimination, would have me charged, "and rightfully so".

Only, you say, unless I remain silent about my reasons.
This speaks volumes to me.

Please, anyone reading, pause... and let what Dan has just said sink in.

Thanks Dan, for showing where you stand. But, I must say I'm quite repulsed and offended that you'd have me (and other Christians and people) punished for holding to their beliefs.

How ironic that you claim to be Christian, and yet would join the world in oppressing of Christians.
If you can't see how extreme your views are, then here I rest.

If anyone supports Dan's above comments, discrimination against Christians and believing they should be charged for sticking to their beliefs and "rightfully so" -- they're a disgrace as a Christian. Disagree with me if you want, sharing my opinion.

Kurieuo wrote:

K wrote:

D220 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:We're talking about cakes here. Now you're moving the goal posts. In cases of violence, you might recall what I wrote a few posts back. This isn't a debating game to me.

I often design websites for people. If a person came to me, wanting me to provide them with a website that is an activist gay website, and I refused, what should my punishment be Dan?

Under the anti discrimination laws you could be charged and rightfully so.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/employer ... ation-laws

But you could just give no reason for turning it down and that would be acceptable.

Notwithstanding I don't see any discrimination against a person, you'd consider my non-compliance to create an activist gay website as discrimination, would have me charged, "and rightfully so".

Only, you say, unless I remain silent about my reasons.
This speaks volumes to me.

Please, anyone reading, pause... and let what Dan has just said sink in.

Thanks Dan, for showing where you stand. But, I must say I'm quite repulsed and offended that you'd have me (and other Christians and people) punished for holding to their beliefs.

How ironic that you claim to be Christian, and yet would join the world in oppressing of Christians.
If you can't see how extreme your views are, then here I rest.

If anyone supports Dan's above comments, discrimination against Christians and believing they should be charged for sticking to their beliefs and "rightfully so" -- they're a disgrace as a Christian. Disagree with me if you want, sharing my opinion.

Forget to take your aspergers medication today, Kurieuo?

RickD wrote:Forget to take your aspergers medication today, Kurieuo?

No, I'm seeing things quite clearly here and calling it out.

Check this site out: http://www.adflegal.org/for-attorneys/cases/ (I posted some cases earlier in the thread)

Read over some of the cases. In many cases, Dan would say each Christian was "extreme in oppressing minorities and how this leads to a society that murders millions..." That, their "views are extreme for allowing and supporting Christians to persecute others, which in my opinion is worse!!" Furthermore, that each of these Christians ought to be charged "and rightfully so."

I really can't support anyone with those views. For a self-processing Christian to support such nonsense, and condone persecuting other Christians who would in fact love others and God, it beggars belief. Dan drew the line in the sand, I'm just making it more pronounced.

neo-x wrote:what if you are living in a non-Christian country and they refuse to get you a cake based on the Christian belief/message that has to go on the cake. And what if you are a minority and you get refused everywhere. Wouldn't that be wrong, unfair, unjust, discriminating?

Since we are talking about cake... Bake your own cake, it is not that hard.

You want to sue every business in the country because you can't have a Christian cake? How loving of you.

"Wrong, unfair, unjust, discriminating" are ridiculous when you are talking about cakes.

... maybe I am biased because I love making cakes -- it's a non-issue...

People are not going to die, or have hardships in life because of lack of access to a professionally decorated cake.

Go get married, and eat fresh fruit at your reception... much healthier for you, just as God made it.
Spell out your names with berries or whatever. Come on....

(I am on Page 10... I am attempting to catch up.)

What is mind-blowing as that any Christian would suggest one shouldn't follow their conscience on how they conduct their lives and businesses. So we're to ignore our consciences about how God would have us not contribute to things we think violate His laws and principles, so we can unreasonably accommodate the opposing sensibilities of others? Or the state? Really, that's a leftist political view. In other words, if someone doesn't agree with MY beliefs, I should have some way of harming them, to the point of great expense and mental anguish? So instead of appealing to someone's heart or mind - even if it's in boycotting their business - they'd rather bring the state down the crushing power of the state upon someone's head - OVER FREAKING words someone wants written on a cake???!!! That's how people think nowadays - they apparently want their cake, to eat it, AND for their baker to violate their own conscience in the frosted writings on top of it. Love it, because they could care less about the discrimination THEY are doing to someone A) not harming anyone and B) simply are following their own conscience. They could care less about the baker, as it's all about themselves and what THEY think they are due.

And very interesting how those so hot over this issue apparently don't believe practicing homosexuality is wrong or that God has condemned it.

melanie wrote: If I worked at McDonald and an obese person asked for a double cheeseburger and I refused them under religious reasons because of gluttony then that would not stand up in public opinion or a court.
I would get the sack.
Or if I worked in a video store and some guy seemed to be hiring sexual explicit movies and I declined him service because I thought he was a bit of a creep and my religious beliefs didn't accommodate perverts.
I could work at a tv station that is broadcasting the Victoria secret runway show and indecent exposure is probably not the most Christian approach.
Or if I worked at a clinic that pumps women full of Botox and fillers, exasperating a ego centric, self absorbed mentality.
How often in today's world are our values questioned and our jobs not ideally the most Christian way of operating.

You can't compare employees to business owners, because as employees you have no control of the business policies.

So, taking a job at these places means abiding by the business' rules.
Franchisees also have to abide by their brands policies (e.g. McDonalds, Blockbuster) -- the parent brand could drop you if you didn't follow their policies.

So, as a Christian business owner in control of your own brand:
- if you owned a burger shop, I would expect you to serve nutritious food. So feeding it to an obese person should not be an issue.
- if you owned a video store, I would hope you would choose not to stock sexually explicit (porn) movies. If it were me, I'd only stock what I could buy from a Christian bookshop
- if you owned a TV station, I would expect you would not broadcast indecent footage
- if you owned a beauty clinic, I would expect you to truely pamper your customers, teach them to love the skin they are in and appreciate their God-given beauty, and not try and change themselves for vanity
etc.

Of course as a worker your freedom is to choose a job that you are comfortable working in.
If the role causes you to go against your morals, then leave.
And people do very often when this happens.
(e.g. former abortion workers who left the industry once they became pro-life/anti-abortion, former porns stars leave and join Christian missions, etc)

Danieltwotwenty wrote:No one was able to give a counter to my paramedic argument so I am going to re-post it.

Say you are a paramedic who has deeply held religious beliefs about not being able to touch people with tattoos, should they ignore their man made oath because they believe they would be breaking their moral code which is instituted by God or should they ignore their religious beliefs instead, after all they are not discriminating against the person, just discriminating against their tattoos.

So is this discrimination or not?

The only objection was to wear gloves, but this may not be sufficient for this person.

This is an example where the Paramedic's discrimination can harm or kill someone.

Paramedics is an important job where lives are on the line.

If you cannot do what needs to be done to save lives, because you cannot touch people with tattoos, then don't be a paramedic. You are putting lives at risk and that is wrong.

(I am on page 13 now)

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Stop posting videos that I cannot watch. I am at work and at home I try to stay off forums and spend time with my family.

Other people are on this thread other than you, Daniel. This discussion isn't all about you.

I like your videos, K

Danieltwotwenty wrote:So how would you feel about discrimination against coloured people based on your religious beliefs? Is that just sticks and stones, should we as a society condone such behaviour?

Edit. Just to make it clear, couple getting married, one is coloured the other is not, they go to get a cake and wants a message on it, cake maker refuses based on his religious beliefs.

Does the baker in your example hold no animosity towards the couple?
They are happy to serve them any baked product in their store... so they are not refusing to serve them based on race.
The baker is just not comfortable with decorating a cake for an inter-racial marriage - so is refusing to make that particular kind of cake only?

Mrs K wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Stop posting videos that I cannot watch. I am at work and at home I try to stay off forums and spend time with my family.

Other people are on this thread other than you, Daniel. This discussion isn't all about you.

I like your videos, K

I like your videos too, K.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Just so there is no confusion for you Rick, I will put it into a scenario.

There are two couples one heterosexual (Sam and Samantha) and one homosexual (Sam and Sam), both go to buy a wedding cake with the exact same message on it "Sam & Sam". The cake maker makes the cake with the message for the heterosexual couple but does not for the homosexual couple. Obviously the message is the same in both instances, it is not offensive in anyway shape or form, so we must conclude that the message is not the reason for the discrimination, but instead that couples sexual orientation that is being discriminated against.

Don't oversimplify the situation too much.
We are not talking about basic cakes with the names written in frosting on top.
These are artistically designed cakes where the decorator can spend hours perfecting details.
Art requires inspiration, so you need to have your heart in it to get the design right.

Here is video of a Jack Phillips, a cake artist from Colorado, explaining it from his side. Jack was taken to court for refusing to make a cake for a couple's same sex marriage. NOTE: Jack offered to make the couple any other type of baked good or sell them a pre-made cake, but, because of his faith, he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex wedding ceremony.



At 2:10 Jack says:

"It's my pleasure to sell them cookies and cakes and birthday cakes and brownies. It's not their lifestyle that I am accused of turning away. But that's not what it was, it was the event being force to celebrate.

It's not just the case for the same sex weddings. I haven't singled out that one issue as somethat I won't do.
I also won't make cakes for bachelor parties. I don't make Halloween cakes or anything involving witchcraft or demons.
Sometimes it seems like I've turned down more cakes in a day than I've taken orders for.

For us to limit what we do because of a public accomodations act says that we don't want God to be part of our lives except for on Sunday."

From the website:

... the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for sexual orientation discrimination.

Even after explaining to the commission that it wasn’t the people Jack objected to, it was the message the cake would send about marriage, an administrative law judge ruled against Jack in December 2013, saying that designing and creating cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies are not speech protected by the First Amendment.

The commission also ordered Jack and his staff to create cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a “re-education” program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs form his business.

Jack's lawers appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals but lost, and are currently petitioning the Colorado Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/c ... p-v.-craig

Mrs K wrote:Here is video of a Jack Phillips, a cake artist from Colorado, explaining it from his side. Jack was taken to court for refusing to make a cake for a couple's same sex marriage. NOTE: Jack offered to make the couple any other type of baked good or sell them a pre-made cake, but, because of his faith, he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex wedding ceremony.


At 2:10 Jack says:

"It's my pleasure to sell them cookies and cakes and birthday cakes and brownies. It's not their lifestyle that I am accused of turning away. But that's not what it was, it was the event being force to celebrate.

It's not just the case for the same sex weddings. I haven't singled out that one issue as somethat I won't do.
I also won't make cakes for bachelor parties. I don't make Halloween cakes or anything involving witchcraft or demons.
Sometimes it seems like I've turned down more cakes in a day than I've taken orders for.

For us to limit what we do because of a public accomodations act says that we don't want God to be part of our lives except for on Sunday."

Sounds to me like Jack was "extreme in oppressing minorities" and if this is allowed it quickly "leads to a society that murders millions...". His views "are extreme" and "allowing and supporting such Christians to persecute others, is worse!!" He ought to be charged "and rightfully so."

Here is another case: Barronelle Stutzman from Richland, Washington runs a florist and has served and employed people who identified as gay her whole career (40 years). In 2013 a long time customer (someone she knew was gay and who she considered a friend) asked her to make flowers for his wedding to another man.

After much consideration, she felt quite conflicted as she loved her friend, Barronelle respectfully declined as she did not want to take part in their gay ceremony because of her beliefs. The friend's partner complained on social media and the story went viral. The Washington State Attorney picked up the story and filed a case against Barronelle claiming she was required to participate in the wedding by law.

She was then also sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the couple. She lost the case and was ordered to pay attorney fees.

Her lawyers (Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)) petitioned for her case to be heard by the Supreme Court which will begin in November this year.

More information here: http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/ca ... e-stutzman

Mrs. K,

I'm glad you decided to post these examples. Any rational person can see that this kind of persecution against Christians is disgusting.