"If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple means the "Christian" baker participated?"

[Edward]

I noticed this question being asked in a member's sigline in another thread. I didn't want to derail the other thread so I'll answer it here.

Member: Honey has this in the sig line;

"If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple means the "Christian" baker participated in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer mean the gun dealer participated in the murder?".../

This is not a fair question to ask. A reasonable assumption is that full disclosure has not been completed on both sides, so it would prove nothing. It can be reasonably assumed that the Baker who didn't want make a cake for a gay couples wedding...was told that it was for a gay wedding. So the participation is in the disclosure of that fact, if they had went ahead and made the cake for them. They knew what it was going to be for.

Then you ask if a gun shop sells a gun to a murderer mean that they participated in the murder? Ok...would it be reasonable to assume that the murderer informed the seller of the gun that they intended to go murder someone with it? The answer is no, otherwise the sale wouldn't go through. So your question and point are invalid on it's face. No offense, but a waste of sigline space.

 

[reba]

"If selling a wedding cake to a gay couple means the "Christian" baker participated in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer mean the gun dealer participated in the murder?".../

An answer yes if the seller knows it is to be used for murder... Sex outside of God's plan is sin murder is also sin

 

[reba]

YIKES 2 one of those times we agree Edward

 

[Razeontherock]

The deeper question here is what does it mean to participate in a wedding?

I don't know if that goes beyond the scope the OP intended, so I won't go there unless Edward thinks it's a good idea.

 

[Edward]

The deeper question here is what does it mean to participate in a wedding?

I don't know if that goes beyond the scope the OP intended, so I won't go there unless Edward thinks it's a good idea.

Why not? It's related. I'm ok with talking about that if you want.

 

[Knotical]

The deeper question here is what does it mean to participate in a wedding?

I don't know if that goes beyond the scope the OP intended, so I won't go there unless Edward thinks it's a good idea.

It does not, necessarily mean they are participating in the wedding, however, if the baker knew the cake would be for a couple that is the same gender then doing the cake would mean on a certain level that they support the marriage.

 

[Mike]

If I'm a firearms dealer, do I have the right to deny the sale of a gun to someone who will use it for something I disagree with? Will I have a block of society protesting my decision not to sell them the gun? Will I make the national news and be labeled closed-minded and hateful?

I think it's an easier road to anger the mafia than the LGBT.

 

[Razeontherock]

It does not, necessarily mean they are participating in the wedding, however, if the baker knew the cake would be for a couple that is the same gender then doing the cake would mean on a certain level that they support the marriage.

This is very much a "matter of private conscience," as Thomas Jefferson called it. The Bible doesn't specifically address this one way or another, so we are left to prayer, safety in the multitude of counselors, sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, and ultimately to stand before our Maker.

The right to free exercise of religion REALLY comes into play here, and Christians should not trifle with this!

Starting in 1982 I could have continued in a career as a wedding services planner. That I got out after a little bit of training, or why, doesn't really come to bear here. The fact is many people are in this sticky position, it could have been me, so it strikes rather close to home.

If you feel that conferring your time, efforts, artistic or otherwise, to a wedding means that you condone or extend your blessing upon the union, people should respect that and so should the law.

If you feel you can do whatever for them even if you disagree with SSM for whatever reason(s) be they religious or otherwise, then that's between that individual and God too.

Scripture speaks plainly to this: 1 Cor 8:10

Further, if someone supports SSM, either secularly or in the Church, that is also between them and God.

Nowhere does it say believers have some right to condescend towards each other over any such matter; quite the opposite!

I hope my points are clear? This is an area where the Body of Christ is both hurting and being hurtful, which was predictable as the issue came up.

 

[Razeontherock]

If I'm a firearms dealer, do I have the right to deny the sale of a gun to someone who will use it for something I disagree with? Will I have a block of society protesting my decision not to sell them the gun? Will I make the national news and be labeled closed-minded and hateful?

I think it's an easier road to anger the mafia than the LGBT.

A firearms dealer has an absolute duty to refuse the sale if the purpose is something they disagree with. I'm not sure how well that serves what you're trying to say?

 

[Willie T]

This is very much a "matter of private conscience," as Thomas Jefferson called it. The Bible doesn't specifically address this one way or another, so we are left to prayer, safety in the multitude of counselors, sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, and ultimately to stand before our Maker.

The right to free exercise of religion REALLY comes into play here, and Christians should not trifle with this!

Starting in 1982 I could have continued in a career as a wedding services planner. That I got out after a little bit of training, or why, doesn't really come to bear here. The fact is many people are in this sticky position, it could have been me, so it strikes rather close to home.

If you feel that conferring your time, efforts, artistic or otherwise, to a wedding means that you condone or extend your blessing upon the union, people should respect that and so should the law.

If you feel you can do whatever for them even if you disagree with SSM for whatever reason(s) be they religious or otherwise, then that's between that individual and God too.

Scripture speaks plainly to this: 1 Cor 8:10

Further, if someone supports SSM, either secularly or in the Church, that is also between them and God.

Nowhere does it say believers have some right to condescend towards each other over any such matter; quite the opposite!

I hope my points are clear? This is an area where the Body of Christ is both hurting and being hurtful, which was predictable as the issue came up.

Is that the same Thomas Jefferson who created his own version of the Bible by cutting parts out with a pen knife and Copy/Pasting in new stuff where he chose?......... IF that story is true. I dunno, it's just what I read.

 

[Razeontherock]

He did come up with his own version. Not sure if he added to, I haven't read it. He certainly took away from! All the miracles, calling himself a "rationalist." He wrote a letter accompanying the introduction of his "Jefferson Bible" when he sent it to someone; that I have read. In it he claimed to be a Christian, which makes it more than a little interesting when antitheist secularists today claim he is not.

All of our Nation's founders were fire-breathing Bible thumpers compared to the state of the US Church at large today! Whenever unbelievers raise the point I'll always go to the two doubting Thomases first, Jefferson and Paine. It's easy to get them to concede they were the weakest believers among their peers, and yet they had a Faith that makes the average Christian in the pew look puny by comparison, as evidenced by their writings.

 

[Count Duckula]

Is that the same Thomas Jefferson who created his own version of the Bible by cutting parts out with a pen knife and Copy/Pasting in new stuff where he chose?......... IF that story is true. I dunno, it's just what I read.

I have never seen a Bible that is not printed on both sides of each page. I know you can buy a copy of this Bible. Maybe he used 2 of them? Maybe he just penned out things? From what I heard he mainly removed the supernatural elements of Christ to make him human. I believe he was also quoted that in the future Christ would be seen as a myth and that religion negatively effects intelligent thought. He also had children with a mistress.

 

[Razeontherock]

There are professing Christians today that hold that Christ is a myth. Scary!

Pretty sure TJ didn't preempt Bill Gates' patent on cut and paste, but wrote it out. I hear it's pretty short.

 

[Mike]

A firearms dealer has an absolute duty to refuse the sale if the purpose is something they disagree with. I'm not sure how well that serves what you're trying to say?

That was a rhetorical question you were responding to. It was a statement more than a question purposed to highlight the fact that you pointed out. Most of my post was satirical, but the one very serious point was that hell hath no fury as the LGBT scorned. You don't even need to scorn them. Anything that slightly slows down their locomotive that has been gaining steam over the past 40 years will have you feeling their wrath.

 

[Willie T]

Well, I have a hard time with believing it is a positive thing to just have "Faith." If our faith is misdirected, or it is in the wrong thing, I think that is more than problematic.

The Bible never said that "Faith in God comes from hearing (or reading) 'whatever'." It simply said "Faith (in anything) comes from hearing". And Hitler said the same thing. He said that if you hear a lie often enough and loudly enough, you come to believe it (have faith in it). He proved it by convincing Germans to fear and hate the Jews.

To develop "faith in God", we have to hear (or read) the accurate word of God repeated often.

 

[WIP]

A firearms dealer has an absolute duty to refuse the sale if the purpose is something they disagree with. I'm not sure how well that serves what you're trying to say?

Are you saying that if I want to purchase a firearm for deer hunting and a firearms dealer doesn't like deer hunting that he has the right to deny me the sale on those grounds?

 

[WIP]

Are you saying that if I want to purchase a firearm for deer hunting and a firearms dealer doesn't like deer hunting that he has the right to deny me the sale on those grounds?

Actually, I phrased this wrong. Let me start over.

Are you saying that if I want to purchase a firearm for deer hunting and a firearms dealer doesn't like deer hunting that he has an absolute duty to deny me the sale on those grounds?

 

[Razeontherock]

Are you saying that if I want to purchase a firearm for deer hunting and a firearms dealer doesn't like deer hunting that he has the right to deny me the sale on those grounds?

No. A firearms dealer LOVES hunting deer, and is very much in the business of helping others do so.

A firearms dealer has an absolute duty to object to any criminal use of a gun, and to deny sale to anyone he thinks even MIGHT use it for such an objectionable purpose.

Likewise, a Christian with conviction that homosexuality is sin, who cannot bless a SSM and feels that doing so would be sinful FOR THEM, has an absolute duty before God to withhold their own blessing from the ceremony.

This is exactly what is meant by "free exercise of religion" that our Constitution (supposedly) protects!

 

[th1b.taylor]

I know from reading these responses that there are no Professional Bakers in this conversation. The Baker must be on site and thus participate in the Wedding. There is not a Flaming Homo alive that would be happy with less than a seven layer Wedding Cake mounted on Roman Columns with two men on the Top of it; the baker does not transport that cake assembled and with the wealthy and the LGBT Community, the Baker is expected to serve the cake.

How do I know this, my daughter and one niece bake cakes and if I'm not in the room, they watch the Channel the Bakers of such cakes are on to get new ideas.

 

[WIP]

No. A firearms dealer LOVES hunting deer, and is very much in the business of helping others do so.

A firearms dealer has an absolute duty to object to any criminal use of a gun, and to deny sale to anyone he thinks even MIGHT use it for such an objectionable purpose.

Your first statement is an assumption. What makes you think that all firearms dealers love hunting deer?

Your second statement says that he is duty bound to deny someone the sale simply because they "think" the buyer might use it for criminal activity? I might think a lot of things about somebody but that doens't make it realistic. The way we stereotype people, this line of thought opens up a whole can of worms. What if I "think" black people are more likely to commit crimes? Would I be justified to discriminate against blanck persons based on that assumption? Something tells me I would find myself in court right quick.