Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

a reply to: JohnFisher

So again, yes, the baker is the church.

Sorry but the law doesn't view a person as the Church.

Consider this, if a church was composed of just one person and that person sinned, how would the "church of one" withdraw from the sinner? How can an individual cease to fellowship himself? The answer is that he cannot. A single person cannot constitute a church.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Annee

This did happen a few years back.

The pastor was within his legal rights to deny marriage because of mixed race.

That's sad. To be honest, I'm not really a big fan of mixed racial marriage (or the race card), but that's more from my desire to conserve my heritage (my roots). I'm engaged to a woman with Celtic roots like my own. However, from a faith-based perspective, the pastor should have been disciplined from within the church. If I ever become a pastor, which is a definite possibility, I'll never deny or judge a racially mixed couple seeking marriage because of their race. How does that bring glory to God? It doesn't.

I do believe he was disciplined within the church. But, he still was in his rights.

I can understand wanting to keep a specific cultural heritage. I don't consider that racist.

a reply to: Willtell

What about the guy in Utah, sitting in jail as we speak.

What guy in Utah? Can you please post a link to that case?

The baker isn't a church but a church is a business.

In the eyes of the law the Church is viewed as a charity not a business. That is why it is given an automatic tax free status.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Annee

I said inside the house of worship. Not who presides over the ceremony.

If this is right what prevents a gay couple from demanding from a church that they get married in said church?

Who presides over the ceremony doesn’t matter

The government is not allowed to pass a law that infers with the Church. So no they cannot order a Church to marry gays. But this baker isn't a Church is he?

You sure about that?

What about the guy in Utah, sitting in jail as we speak.

Do you have a link?

So we have the facts of what you're talking about?

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
If the homosexual couple was told they had to undergo "sensitivity training" in regards to their attitude to the baker, not one person defending this ruling would claim that was right.

I don't think that's entirely true, GreenEyes.

Really? So no one ever protested when homosexuals were told their behavior could be changed by therapy? I seem to recall a lot of protest over that. How is that wrong, and this right?

originally posted by: Pinke
Myself, I've seen a few things brought against Christians that weren't right, and I can roll off a bunch of instances where, yes, gay people have over reacted to things. Refusing someone a haircut on account of their religious or political beliefs is the same instance as the whole cake thing. It happened, bunch of people supported it, I don't agree with it. The moment I'm so offended and upset at the state of my country to the point of extreme distress I go off and protest, I don't just start refusing to work for individual people.

A haircut isn't the same as the cake, though. A haircut is simply a haircut. The baker didn't refuse to make anything for them; he simply stated he couldn't make a wedding cake for them, because that would make him a participant in something that is against his religious beliefs. If he'd refused to make them anything, that would be the same.

originally posted by: Pinke
I just kind of like the idea that, in the interests of getting along, we provide services to each other. I've lived that mantra working for some fairly intense church and political groups in the past as well as real estate agents and lawyers who I seem to dislike on general principal.

Services, sure. Services specifically supporting an event that is against one's religion? That's where I draw the line. I wouldn't expect a gay bar to host a Bible study, either. Being respectful of one another means we have to respect beliefs, too, and not demand that everyone agree with us.

originally posted by: Pinke
In countries where this hasn't been this general rule I find people can't be themselves and the tension is palpable. I get that not everyone agrees, but that's the problem with signing 300 million people up to the same rules, someone always has a different idea. They're not even necessarily applying their own idea unfairly, they're quite nice and common sensical persons, but it has to be done one way or the other.

My other two thoughts are, I don't think this is as regular occurrence as this thread would indicate, and regarding sensitivity training, yes that's nonsense and part of me wonders if the judge is being a troll.

Tension is palpable here as well. I haven't heard of the "sensitivity training" being pushed before, and agree the judge is a troll, but I have heard of many other similar lawsuits. Other bakers told they had to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings, photographers told they had to take photos at such a wedding, and bed & breakfast owners told they had to accept homosexual couples, even when the B&B is in their HOME. That's forcing someone to accept beliefs as much as is the 'sensitivity training".

I honestly can't understand why someone would want a baker of photographer helping with their wedding that thought the wedding was wrong, anyway. Seems like that would spoil things.

To restate my other point -

Just because a person is against same-sex ceremony/wedding doesn't mean that he/she is against homosexuality.

a reply to: Annee

I like you annee. You seem like a reasonable person.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Annee

I like you annee. You seem like a reasonable person.

Thanks. I try to be straight forward and logical.

So, if we ever get into it, nothing personal

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
To restate my other point -

Just because a person is against same-sex ceremony/wedding doesn't mean that he/she is against homosexuality.

Here's an old ATS thread for you.

"I have gay friends, but..." Umm... No, you don't... www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Annee

How is that relevant?

Are you saying that the people who oppose same-sex marriages do so BECAUSE they oppose homosexuality?

How is that connected?

a reply to: JohnFisher

OK, let's re-examine the fact... The baker didn't refuse service because the men were gay. He refused service because the men ordered a celebratory cake for a same-sex marriage. If the gay men ordered a cake for a birthday party, there would not have been a problem because God teaches us to love and greet all persons including our enemies -- yes, even our wicked, corrupt national leaders. But... a Christian, a bible believing Christian, should always refuse to participate in anti-Christian behavior.

So this guy should also deny wedding cakes for Jews, Muslims and people of the many other faiths in this land because let's face it their marriages are not Christian.

Glenn Beck just posted his interview with the baker and his attorney. You can view the article and video here:

www.glennbeck.com...

Hope this clears up some of the confusion and outright misinformation coursing through this thread a few pages back.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The guy broke the law. It's very plain, simple and direct. Some of the loudest voices here are continually screeching about State's Rights, and yet, the People of Colorado passed these laws, and now, you want to abridge them.

Think about for a minute. Think about the ludicrosity of your position.

The guy broke NO LAW!!

He committed no crime. Refusing to bake a cake is not a hate crime.

Hot damn I LOATHE people like you, wanting to cram your PC bullshizt down everyone elses throats.

It's sad actually. A person like you will never even know the meaning of the word freedom.

Freedom includes the right to offend and the right to be offended, the right to live how you want and die how you want. Stop trying to save everyone from themselves and get our there and live your own life already!

The law used to say blacks and whites couldn't mix socially - I think you know the details.

Are you really going to cling to the argument that just because a law wasn't broken it wasn't wrong?

CLING??? You just freely admitted the guy broke no law, so how in seven hells can you justify his censure, and forced re-education??

Jesus christ you are a jack-booted POS. It's funny how the extreme left and extreme right actually meet in the same place on the WRONG side of the sphere.

For the record I do not oppose the same-sex marriage. I am all for it.

originally posted by: Ollie769
Glenn Beck just posted his interview with the baker and his attorney. You can view the article and video here:

www.glennbeck.com...

Hope this clears up some of the confusion and outright misinformation coursing through this thread a few pages back.

When he does an interview with Michelangelo Signorile.

Please let me know. Thank you.

a reply to: Annee

Quick question:

A person opposes any kind of marriage because:

-they can take advantage of tax breaks
-divorces are costly
-green card
-political reasons
-marriage certificate is just a piece of paper
-any belief

If that person HAPPENS to oppose the same-sex marriage, does it mean that he/she opposes homosexuality?

a reply to: Annee

This guy Warren Jeffs had in his church law the right to marry little girls.
THAT IS A CRIME!

There is always people in religion that go too far. The STATE OFTEN INTERVENES.

en.wikipedia.org...
Warren Steed Jeffs (born December 3, 1955) is the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church).[a] In 2011, Jeffs was convicted of two felony counts of child sexual assault.[5] Jeffs gained international notoriety in May 2006 when he was placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution on Utah state charges related to his alleged arrangement of illegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls. He was arrested in August 2006 in Nevada, and agreed to be taken to Utah for trial. In May and July 2007 the State of Arizona charged him with eight additional counts, including sexual conduct with minors and incest, in two separate cases.[6]

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Annee

Quick question:

A person opposes any kind of marriage because:

-they can take advantage of tax breaks
-divorces are costly
-green card
-political reasons
-marriage certificate is just a piece of paper
-any belief

If that person HAPPENS to oppose the same-sex marriage, does it mean that he/she opposes homosexuality?

There are people who marry for religious reasons, without a government license. Just an FYI: www.boundaries-for-effective-ministry.org...

How does one oppose homosexuality?

Homosexuality is as much of a birth right as heterosexuality.

Do you oppose heterosexuality?

My personal view is denying someone the basic right of legal marriage is homophobic.

I will take the silence (non-responsive) to my posts to mean that I am right.

Going against ANY TYPE of marriage doesn't mean going against those people's beliefs, orientations, political, whatever reasons.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Annee

This guy Warren Jeffs had in his church law the right to marry little girls.
THAT IS A CRIME!

Yes it is a crime. A crime for anyone.

It is not a religious crime.

Thank you for correctly identifying them as Fundamentalists. They do have religious freedom, but are in no way sanctioned by the official Church of Jesus Christ if Latter Day Saints.