The First Bakery Decision

Well Christ specifically describes the plan as involving a man and a woman (because of that deliberate design, man and woman). It’s not a general “a persona and a person.” Further, even the NT has some rather harsh wording on homosexuality. But, I’d rather not get deep into that.

The situations where this would apply is rather narrow. The baker himself would sell cakes in general all day to homosexuals. Hell, he might be the first to give the shirt off his back to one if needed, for all I know. He might step in and stop the bullying of a child over the question of his/her sexuality. In so many ways he might actually be one of the most kindest and giving men we could meet. Even to people whose lifestyles might not be compatible (to awkwardly state it) with his own. Yet, he doesn’t want to contribute to homosexual weddings in any way because of sincerely held beliefs (perhaps the same ones that also make him a very generous man).

I refuse to believe we can’t make room in our laws. To not do so seems entirely vindictive and no longer about ensuring people can easily obtain basic needs and wants due to exclusion.

But, that’s just my opinion.

This what more what I was referencing. Just wondering if it was explicitly stated or interpreted. Can’t imagine homosexuality was as prevelent back when the Bible was wrote

Edit:

To this specifically, my fear would be how amazingly easy it would be to abuse this feature

Sure. Like how free speech might be abused. I’m not disagreeing by saying that. In fact, I get what you’re saying. Still, I don’t believe that just because we might be able to search for and find some examples of abuse, well, throw it out! I have to imagine that language which seeks to address the differences between cake and wedding cake (though not necessarily exclusive to wedding cakes, sure) would probably be very narrow and less prone to abuse. Later, examples of actual abuses could be addressed with some tightening up of the language. Also, the baker, and myself, would argue that not recognizing and making room for such differences is abusive. Anyways, I imagine it is already very difficult to find bakers who’d refuse to make the wedding cake, regardless of how they feel about the wedding. And I find it even more unlikely to run into a grocer who wouldn’t sell that same couple bread, meant, water, etc. Therefore, I have to wonder why we would feel the need to paint Mr. Phillips into a corner. No, to not even allow him a corner.

Well, I was speaking more towards SCOTUS’ reluctance to weigh in on religious matters. Not only is it counter to the Constitution, but it would require the govt to DEFINE religion. that’s a massive can of worms imo

I could think of a dozen ways to abuse said baker with it. “hi I’m pfury, even though I’m engaging in a gay wedding in 4 months, I’m here to buy a white cake for a party I’m throwing thats entirely unrelated.”

This is probably where they’d smack the baker with a copy of the 1A.

I get what you’re saying. I think that’s why it’s such a slippery slope when the govt starts dicking around with religious matters when they’re expressly not allowed to.

And I’d say it 100% applies in the other direction as well. Given incorrect language out of our oh so smart congressmen, it would become very easy to just start ignoring any and all religious matters or people’s faith.

Personally, I was always more fond of the “let the market sort it out” approach.

1 Like

The thing is that I"m not a libertarian or fiscal conservative, or whatever. I don’t think it is necessarily wrong to use governments to protect people in/from the market. Which is why I especially despise this position. It isn’t only about my own religious beliefs/freedoms (though I admit they are the most pressing). No. I hate the idea that libertarians get a “I told you so.” Give an inch, take every single mile forward.

100% agreed. I don’t see a purpose of the govt if it’s not used to exert the will of the people. If the will of the people cracks the whip on the market so be it.

1 Like

Can’t speak for other religions, but there is a general prohibition in Judaism against profiting from things immoral, even indirectly. So not only should you not be a prostitute, but you shouldn’t be a pimp – or (knowingly) a landlord to a pimp (just to use an example).

Also, one should not seemingly condone things that are incorrect for Jews even if what you are doing is OK, due to concerns about confusing other Jews that it is OK. For example, I wouldn’t go eat a kosher salad in a restaurant that served dog. It’s about not only preserving integrity, but avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

I presume there is something similar in other Abrahamic religions.

2 Likes

Yikes! That’s awfully gray for my tastes.

That’s pretty intense. Ty for sharing.

Would/could this be applied (obv intentionally gray) to, for example, having a 401k in which you’re invested into a company that operates against said beliefs?

Maybe, yes.

Not sure if things get diluted to the point where you just deal with it and move on. I know I did not invest in a private company whose portfolio included what I considered to be usury (a car title loan business) and abuse of the poor. It’s done a consistent ~20% return to investors for a decade now. Occasionally, I have bouts of pain.

2 Likes

Newsflash… just in… Bakers can refuse to make wedding cakes for gay marriage, but must make fairy cakes if requested!