Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:It really is a tricky one this.

Going back to the OP, who is being discriminated against....

I`d say both.

The cake maker for being taken to court for standing by what they believe in and refusing to make the cake and the gay couple for being refused a cake based on what someone else believes.

It is quite easy really.

The gay person was not being refused a cake due to his gayness.
Therefore there is no discrimination involved.

Rather beliefs were being forced onto another person (the cake maker) that went against their beliefs.
And then the cake maker was punished by the legal system for not supporting such beliefs.

When people are so easily blinded to how clear this is, then another holocaust is likely around the corner.
Just pray you're not part of the one's being persecuted. It'll more likely be your children or children's children.

The company has also, in the past, refused orders that contain pornographic images or foul, abusive language.

Storyteller wrote:The company has also, in the past, refused orders that contain pornographic images or foul, abusive language.

People who swear and watch porn should sue for "discrimination".
No real difference. That's how I see matters.

Storyteller wrote:The company has also, in the past, refused orders that contain pornographic images or foul, abusive language.

What a bunch of discriminating jerks! Clearly, anyone who won't make a cake with pornographic images or foul language, should be thrown in jail for discrimination. Just make the cakes for Pete's sake! So what if it's offensive. Sheesh...the nerve of some people!

melanie wrote:Rick, it is the comparible distiction you drew on that I saw an absurdity in.
Gays and religion compared to sick, illegal, pedophile material on how to lure young girls and rape them.
So where do you draw the line on what's acceptable sellable material.
No brainer

The reason that cakes for gay weddings and "offensive" literature were compared was to create a hypothetical situation which A could relate her own business to (since A owns a bookshop).

No one is implying we should restrict freedom of thought.

At the end of the day, A is a reseller of products. She doesn't make the books herself.

A closer analogy would perhaps be if A was a freelance writer and asked to write a novel similar to say "50 Shades of Grey" (buy maybe a homosexual version).

Can she in good conscience say "no, I'd rather not... here's some other good writers you could ask"? or should she be forced to use her creative talent for something against her conscience (assuming you don't like that topic ) because to say no would somehow be discriminatory?

How is it discriminatory? In the same way not creating a cake for a gay wedding is in my opinion.
A is discriminating against creating the product, she is not discriminating against the customer.

(NOTE: I haven't even said if the customer was gay or not. Same with the wedding cake, the sexuality of the customer plays no part in the decision of whether or not to make the cake... it's how they are asking for it to be decorated which is being declined.)

Mrs K wrote:

melanie wrote:Rick, it is the comparible distiction you drew on that I saw an absurdity in.
Gays and religion compared to sick, illegal, pedophile material on how to lure young girls and rape them.
So where do you draw the line on what's acceptable sellable material.
No brainer

The reason that cakes for gay weddings and "offensive" literature were compared was to create a hypothetical situation which A could relate her own business to (since A owns a bookshop).

No one is implying we should restrict freedom of thought.

At the end of the day, A is a reseller of products. She doesn't make the books herself.

A closer analogy would perhaps be if A was a freelance writer and asked to write a novel similar to say "50 Shades of Grey" (buy maybe a homosexual version).

Can she in good conscience say "no, I'd rather not... here's some other good writers you could ask"? or should she be forced to use her creative talent for something against her conscience (assuming you don't like that topic ) because to say no would somehow be discriminatory?

How is it discriminatory? In the same way not creating a cake for a gay wedding is in my opinion.
A is discriminating against creating the product, she is not discriminating against the customer.

(NOTE: I haven't even said if the customer was gay or not. Same with the wedding cake, the sexuality of the customer plays no part in the decision of whether or not to make the cake... it's how they are asking for it to be decorated which is being declined.)

Much better analogy than mine.

Not that there's anything wrong with being gay.

• gay
  adjective
  light-hearted and carefree.
  "Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"
  synonyms: cheerful, cheery, merry, jolly, light-hearted, mirthful, jovial, glad, happy, bright, in good spirits, in high spirits, joyful, elated, exuberant, animated, lively, sprightly, vivacious, buoyant, bouncy, bubbly, perky, effervescent, playful, frolicsome;

If only all marriages were gay.

People should be able to operate their business according to their own conscience, if something makes them uncomfortable you shouldn't be allowed to force someone to do something against their own will. In say that, you are selling a food which makes people obese, it would make you a bit of a hypocrite that you won't sell a "gay" cake but you will sell food laden with sugar and fat that I am sure every vendor sells to people who are unhealthily overweight, their cakes may have even lead to the death of a person.

On the flip side of this, how about Muslim people who find women who have not covered their heads offensive, should they refuse service to non Muslims because of their beliefs?

I would sell gay cakes, I would not impose my personal beliefs on others through discrimination and bigotry, I would treat others how I want to be treated.

D220 wrote:I would sell gay cakes, I would not impose my personal beliefs on others through discrimination and bigotry, I would treat others how I want to be treated.

If you don't sell cakes supportive of gay marriage, then you're discriminatory and a bigot. What makes such a bigot?

RickD wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Fair points K.

I hadn`t really considered it as the Christians being discriminated against. I suppose it`s a personal thing. While I personally don`t see a problem with the cake, I can respect why as a Christian, someone may have strong views about things like this.

Rick.... I do have a backbone, which is precisely why I will sell any book, regardless of my view on it. Just because I may disagree with the content doesn`t mean I shouldn`t sell it. My bookshop is not the place to make a stand. It is a business.

While I hope that my beliefs wouldn`t sway my decisions on what to sell, I respect the fact that it is other peoples choice whether to sell something or not.

Annette,

Hypothetically,

Would you sell a book by a pedophile that gave instructions on how to lure preteen girls into a van, then gave explicit details of how he raped a dozen young girls? Or would you just leave that up to the book buyer to decide if they want to buy the book?

This is unfair reasoning.

Rick, if you are one Christian in a country full of Muslims, who want a cake for their religous ceremony, with a religious message on it would you make one for them? if not, would you be discriminating?

I don't understand this argument at all. On any regular day, you are alright if you serve someone supporting a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist message, but not a gay one? How silly is that? Bakeries make cakes for all occasions, race, gender, ethnicity, other religions, all the time. But you have to make an exception for a Gay occasion. You really want to start down this path?

You know what's more dangerous than a belief? A person holding it.

Imagine in a country like mine, Pakistan, where I can't get a cake for a Christian wedding or any Christian ceremony? Because the bakers in my country don't support my religious message. What kind of reasoning is that? I am tax paying citizen. I would rightly call it discrimination.

And I have been to places in Pakistan where the restaurant knows you are Christian, they might not serve you at all, or they might ask you to get your own crockery or cutlery. And that is why I call it discrimination.

If you selling koran and Geeta, you might as well sell any book. There is no problem. And I really don't think a pedophile book will be on the shelf anyway.

So, Annette, you have a spine.

I'd like to point out that the issue, in this case, wasn't with serving a homosexual person. If the person was straight, ordering a cake to have a message on that condones and celebrates gay marriage, then that same person would not have been served.

If on the other hand, the person was not being served a cake precisely because they were gay, or even a pedophile, then forget bigotry or discrimination -- such is unChristian.

A person should always be entitled to not be complicit in whatever their moral conscience tells them is wrong. If the cake has a message that support ISIS and the execution of Christians, then equally I think it would be right for the person to opt out of making such a cake.

We would prefer people to not ignore their moral conscience in certain instances, for example, as was expected by the International tribunal setup to put on trial Nazi German soldiers for war crimes. Such I see (moral conscience of people) is invaluable to protect.

Kurieuo wrote:

D220 wrote:I would sell gay cakes, I would not impose my personal beliefs on others through discrimination and bigotry, I would treat others how I want to be treated.

If you don't sell cakes supportive of gay marriage, then you're discriminatory and a bigot. What makes such a bigot?

I didn't mean it as a general statement, I meant I would be one, it is up to the individual to decide if they feel they are being discriminatory and bigoted or not, and in my case I feel I would be if I didn't bake the cake, to me it would be a sin not to.

I concur with what John said, if you deny one you must deny all things contrary to your own personal beliefs or you are a hypocrite, it is a slippery slope of legalism that one must take, rather than grace and mercy. Like my obesity example, one must also take a stand against that, or if you want to take it too it's logical conclusion of full legalism, you should not sell this sugary fatty goodness in the first place.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

D220 wrote:I would sell gay cakes, I would not impose my personal beliefs on others through discrimination and bigotry, I would treat others how I want to be treated.

If you don't sell cakes supportive of gay marriage, then you're discriminatory and a bigot. What makes such a bigot?

I didn't say that, I said I would be one, it is up to the individual to decide if they feel they are being discriminatory and bigoted or not, and in my case I feel I would be if I didn't bake the cake, to me it would be a sin not to.

That's kind of what I said. Though I think it reasonable to infer then you'd feel somebody who didn't make the cake with a pro-gay message on as being bigoted if you'd think yourself such. But, nonetheless, I wonder why, what makes you feel such an action is bigoted?

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

D220 wrote:I would sell gay cakes, I would not impose my personal beliefs on others through discrimination and bigotry, I would treat others how I want to be treated.

If you don't sell cakes supportive of gay marriage, then you're discriminatory and a bigot. What makes such a bigot?

I didn't say that, I said I would be one, it is up to the individual to decide if they feel they are being discriminatory and bigoted or not, and in my case I feel I would be if I didn't bake the cake, to me it would be a sin not to.

That's kind of what I said. Though isn't it also reasonable to infer then you'd think somebody who didn't make the cake with a pro-gay message on as being bigoted if you'd think yourself such?

Depends on what their reasons are, but I would probably say they are being legalistic, being more worried about following the law than showing grace or mercy.