Colorado Baker Wins

[Brisketexan 105,139]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I agree. My original point was, yet again, religious freedom and secular freedom are in necessary conflict and both can’t win, by design and definition.

Funny how only the "religious freedom to be a dick to people" is in conflict with secular freedom, and not the "religious freedom to be kind and decent."

Wait.  It's not funny at all.  It's fucking tragic, and it's why religion is dying in the civilized world.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

my son's class read this book called wonder. in it, there is a magnificent quote that i try to apply at least once daily. "if you have a choice between being right or being kind, choose kind."

that's about as close to christ's message as i can imagine. choose kind. refusing business on account of "encouraging or celebrating sin" is not choosing kind. bake the fucking cake. it's the kind thing to do. 

I had a migraine from crying for an hour and a half watching this with my 7 year old. That’s an awesome line and I agree. I just belief “right” and “not actively engaging or encouraging sin” are different. The right thing to do according to secular reasoning is in conflict with the things that bring eternal destruction and death some believe

[Brisketexan 105,139]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Nobody is a special class of sinner, I’m the worst of us all. I sin and fail daily, probably much worse than you. 

Yet you escape the cruelty and judgment inflicted on folks like Troph by "christians."

I wonder why that is?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Funny how only the "religious freedom to be a dick to people" is in conflict with secular freedom, and not the "religious freedom to be kind and decent."

Wait.  It's not funny at all.  It's fucking tragic, and it's why religion is dying in the civilized world.

Agreed. So society is prioritizing secular freedom over religious freedom by impeding on religious freedom. Is that what we agree?

[Brisketexan 105,139]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I had a migraine from crying for an hour and a half watching this with my 7 year old. That’s an awesome line and I agree. I just belief “right” and “not actively engaging or encouraging sin” are different. The right thing to do according to secular reasoning is in conflict with the things that bring eternal destruction and death some believe

Bullshit. You enjoy holding yourself apart from and above "the other," and you want them to know it.  You can be both kind and caring in some instances, and cruel as shit in others.  For example, some of the worst racists I've ever know would also cross town to give you the shirt off their back...I mean, presuming you were white.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bullshit. You enjoy holding yourself apart from and above "the other," and you want them to know it.  You can be both kind and caring in some instances, and cruel as shit in others.  For example, some of the worst racists I've ever know would also cross town to give you the shirt off their back...I mean, presuming you were white.

I don’t enjoy that.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Agreed. So society is prioritizing secular freedom over religious freedom by impeding on religious freedom. Is that what we agree?

Nope.  They don't have to be in conflict.  They can be separate and apart.  It's mostly when one twists religion to suit one's pre-existing prejudices and desires that conflict is created.

And again, if the "freedom" that truly matters is the freedom to be cruel....I hope they ARE in conflict, and I hope secular freedom wins.  I am a man of faith.  I am married to a pastor.  And if THAT is the test -- freedom of religion means that the freedom to be cruel and discriminate against "the other" must be protected.....then I will be glad to see religion die a deserved death.  

[troph 24,798]

Nobody is a special class of sinner, I’m the worst of us all. I sin and fail daily, probably much worse than you. 

Then serve me when I come into your store without objection. And for the record, I don’t think anything I’ve done to treat my condition is sinful, not one bit

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet you escape the cruelty and judgment inflicted on folks like Troph by "christians."

I wonder why that is?

My opinion is because people are stupid animals and we react and hold too much value to what we can see. If you could see the soul and the heart, it would be different. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don’t enjoy that.

Bullshit.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, troph said:

Then serve me when I come into your store without objection. And for the record, I don’t think anything I’ve done to treat my condition is sinful, not one bit

Then more power to you!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bullshit.

Lol okay then, more power to you friend.

[Mole 4,333]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

This is the problem with sorting through "conscience". I mean, non-belief is #1 on the Ten Commandments and is (arguably) the sole determinant of salvation. 

 

 

Assuming a Christian believer believes that gay marriage is a sin (there are compelling biblical arguments both ways), I think there's a better biblical case for serving the non-believing gay marriage over the Christian gay marriage. In other words, if someone believes gay marriage to be a sin, I'm inclined to think they should serve the non-believer but might have a biblical argument against serving the gay marrying believer (see 1 Cor. 5). The Epistles make a pretty clear distinction between the standards for the Church vs. the standards for the rest of the world. The world's gonna do what the world does and I shouldn't be surprised or all that condemning. Paul said, "It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning."

The conscience idea only works if we're acting like reasonable people and not thinking like a fundamentalist. In my view, fundamentalist thinking is not only claiming that reading Genesis in its literary context is a rejection of the Gospel (Ken Hamm), it's also some of the thinking in this thread where denial of a particular kind of custom wedding cake is identical to denying basic goods like gasoline (ie. if we allow this religious freedom to not make the custom cake we must allow the religious freedom to murder or whatever other extreme idea we can come up with). We need to have some perspective.

There obviously times we need to compel people to do things against their conscience, but my thought is that we do that way too much as a culture. We should have a really good reason for doing so. We allow for conscientious objectors yet we're somehow able to maintain a military. National defense seems like a high priority yet we're still able to manage it. I don't see how a custom cake (that seems an awful lot like personal expression/speech) is a good reason to compel the baker to make it, especially since they offered any non-custom item and especially in communities where it wouldn't be hard to find another qualified baker. I say that as someone who personally thinks that he should have made the cake from a Christian perspective but can respect the opposing view.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Mole

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Some way more reasonable and moderate tone posts from Christians than my fellow non-believers in this thread.

I get it, fellow atheist edgelords, but chill out.

[David Dennison 18,860]

2 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I had a migraine from crying for an hour and a half watching this with my 7 year old. That’s an awesome line and I agree. I just belief “right” and “not actively engaging or encouraging sin” are different. The right thing to do according to secular reasoning is in conflict with the things that bring eternal destruction and death some believe

That's because the belief that there is eternal destruction is complete and utter nonsense. Even the pope knows that.

[scottsins 1,966]

I agree that there are no fundamental differences between sin, whether it be homosexuality or being a murderer or liar or adulterer. A good analogy here would be not wanting to decorate a cake for the wedding of an adulterer who has just left his wife for his secretary out of lust. You can still serve the adulterer and homosexual, but you aren’t going to actively encourage their sin. 
Also, not believing is not a sin in my sincerely held beliefs. In many ways it might be better for one not to know my truths and be in “sin” as opposed to knowing the truth and sinning. That’s a whole different tangent however.

Homesexuality
Adultery
Murder

Those are analogous to you? Someone is just biologically born a murderer or adulterer?

[safe sex 11,727]

Well, of course, when it's a "lifestyle"

[TahoeHorn 107]

You boys sound like you are talking about an imaginary bogeyman, not the Colorado baker.  I heard no evidence that he was anything but kind and good.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

Homesexuality
Adultery
Murder

Those are analogous to you? Someone is just biologically born a murderer or adulterer?

 

The analogy is that each is a sin and each are equally viewed, eternally speaking, in their severity. Just as any other number of daily sins I commit. I’m no better than the killer in that sense (and I would argue I commit murder in/with my heart daily probably) 

[Incredulity 11,671]

1 hour ago, scottsins said:

 

Homesexuality
Adultery
Murder

Those are analogous to you? Someone is just biologically born a murderer or adulterer?

 

No there are degrees.

As there should be on the other side too.

Refusing to bake a gay marriage wedding cake because of a sincere religious belief shouldn’t be viewed as the equivalent of “No Gays Allowed” signs for a retail store.

Progressives are winning this battle.  Martyring Christian Bakers over wedding cakes is just poor strategy.

[Mole 4,333]

57 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Progressives are winning this battle.  Martyring Christian Bakers over wedding cakes is just poor strategy.

1

I feel like this gets lost in these battles. When viewed in the historical perspective, the shift over the last 20-30 years culminating in the legalization of gay marriage was almost casual. It's amazing really. Everyone just sort of "evolved" on the issue. There was some violence, but nothing at all like other historical social changes and the violence was mostly isolated and widely condemned even by gay marriage opponents. And now the battles surround wedding cakes.

[kopp0e 1,135]

While people fuss over whether to allow LGBT couples to get a cake baked, there are very pressing laws that need to be revised:

 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

44 minutes ago, Mole said:

Everyone just sort of "evolved" on the issue.

Pronouns will basically be gone relatively soon and it will be a bloodless coup. I think the pace of the restructuring accelerates, in some cases, as we realize that all the prophecies of doom never seem to come to pass. It is interesting, because we see huge leaps but the essentially bigoted nature of man doesn't seem to be affected at all.

Interesting stuff.

[TahoeHorn 107]

https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/supreme-court-colorado-baker-gay-wedding-religious-freedom/

[David Dennison 18,860]

3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

You boys sound like you are talking about an imaginary bogeyman, not the Colorado baker.  I heard no evidence that he was anything but kind and good.

You mean other than the whole being a bigot thing?

[troph 24,798]

I feel like this gets lost in these battles. When viewed in the historical perspective, the shift over the last 20-30 years culminating in the legalization of gay marriage was almost casual. It's amazing really. Everyone just sort of "evolved" on the issue. There was some violence, but nothing at all like other historical social changes and the violence was mostly isolated and widely condemned even by gay marriage opponents. And now the battles surround wedding cakes.

No the cake case isn’t remotely where the battle lies, the battle ground ... probably a hundred bills in the coming year alone in state legislatures designed to codify the right to discriminate.

Already in Texas, adoption agencies can deny same sex couples the right to adopt simply because they are gay if it’s a sincerely held religious belief. Gays and trannies are the target. The problem is most - really the vast majority - of all adoption agencies that receive state funding are religiously oriented. So gays and queer/GNC folks can be singled out and denied the right to adopt by an agency that receives state funding, leaving lgbtq folk with non real avenue and subject to discrimination backed by state dollars.

That law is just the beginning. The hard right wants to allow doctors to refuse treatment to gays, wants to allow landlords to discriminate and say no to gay folks and the list goes on and on.

This fight isn’t about the cake and if you knew one single gay man you’d know they don’t eat cake, they can’t afford the calories. This is about far more.

[Incredulity 11,671]

Then fight those fights, because taking away the livelihood of a Christian Baker is just easy propaganda material.

[TDunk 590]

Wasn't rock-n-roll i n the 1950's considered the Devil's music?  Now there is Christian Rock.  So who knows, in 50 years there may be Christian Gay Porn.  

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, TDunk said:

Wasn't rock-n-roll i n the 1950's considered the Devil's music?  Now there is Christian Rock.  So who knows, in 50 years there may be Christian Gay Porn.  

There isn't?

[TDunk 590]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There isn't?

Not sanctioned by the church.  

[Mole 4,333]

Yeah, those are much more compelling and important issues.

Rightly or wrongly, there's a perception among many conservative Christians that much of the culture is increasingly antagonistic to them. It might seem absurd to anyone in a traditionally marginalized group, but if you look at how they're even described on this board, you might see that they have a little bit of a point. This cake thing feels to them like something beyond tolerance; they have to celebrate something that violates their sincerely held beliefs. If they don't acquiesce, they're rubes, ignorant, bigots, stupid, uneducated, immoral, etc. I get the disconnect of the supremely historically advantaged group complaining about perceived persecution, but for these cases on the margins of speech, there's a bit of a point. 

The adoption one will probably be pretty sticky since I'd bet that many of those organizations operate in the grey area between church and something else. I'm personally much less sympathetic to the arguments of those agencies than I am these cases that are borderline free speech issues.

While it might feel like there's a social conservative resurgence, the general trend of history isn't in their favor.

[troph 24,798]

There is a resurgence but no they won’t win. They were on the wrong side of history on every one of these issues. The problem with the cake case was that it had to be fought straight up bc the battle has many fronts. The cake case could have been a disaster. Bc it was well briefed and argued it was not. Watch the headlines re state legislatures this coming year. The religious freedom bills will be everywhere on nearly every topic.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

There is a resurgence but no they won’t win. They were on the wrong side of history on every one of these issues. The problem with the cake case was that it had to be fought straight up bc the battle has many fronts. The cake case could have been a disaster. Bc it was well briefed and argued it was not. Watch the headlines re state legislatures this coming year. The religious freedom bills will be everywhere on nearly every topic.

Nobody inflicts more damage and destruction than the cornered dog in the end game. Think the Battle of the Bulge.

Do I think the bigots will “win?” No. They won’t, the tide is against them, and can’t be stopped. But...they may destroy many lives, and perhaps even the country, in their rear-guard orgy of anger. It isn’t about winning for them anymore, it’s about making sure “the other” also loses.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yet you escape the cruelty and judgment inflicted on folks like Troph by "christians."

I wonder why that is?

Grace is a trippy thing, eh?

 

Why would all Christians be guilty of other people’s hate?  If the group as a whole said they endorsed such hatred, you might have a point, but that isn’t the case and you know it.

 

The broad brush seems to be the ‘in’ thing in Surly politics as of late.  

[bad_teammate 13,195]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Why would all Christians be guilty of other people’s hate?

Am I my brother's keeper?

[troph 24,798]

I am sympathetic to the freedom of speech issue if it’s truly art or custom services. I would not be the one to sue. I would be the one to leave. Y’all know I come from an evangelical background, recovering for sure. I have faith and believe kindness is the only route. I don’t believe I would write an anti-gay message on a cake but then I don’t see any kindness in it. I do see kindness in a pro-gay wedding message. I don’t see kindness in a message that is neo-Nazi or what have you and I tend to think the guiding principle of kindness would work here. I get that others disagree and that standing up to the gays is important for their own moral existence. And while the law may be one thing or another I guess I see kindness as an ace card that would dictate I say and do things to love others even when I disagree with them. So if the baker or the shop owner doesn’t want to sell to me, I’d probably leave and not sue. I’d be hurt and angry but I’d simply leave.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

I am sympathetic to the freedom of speech issue if it’s truly art or custom services. I would not be the one to sue. I would be the one to leave. Y’all know I come from an evangelical background, recovering for sure. I have faith and believe kindness is the only route. I don’t believe I would write an anti-gay message on a cake but then I don’t see any kindness in it. I do see kindness in a pro-gay wedding message. I don’t see kindness in a message that is neo-Nazi or what have you and I tend to think the guiding principle of kindness would work here. I get that others disagree and that standing up to the gays is important for their own moral existence. And while the law may be one thing or another I guess I see kindness as an ace card that would dictate I say and do things to love others even when I disagree with them. So if the baker or the shop owner doesn’t want to sell to me, I’d probably leave and not sue. I’d be hurt and angry but I’d simply leave.

I agree with your take - artistic expression point and all.

But kindness has no place in “public square” Christianity. They don’t fight for kindness. They fight for the right to be petty, cruel, and vindictive. THOSE are the sacred duties worth fighting for. Not kindness.

And no, I don’t paint all Christians with that brush, Slorch. I know so many who practice kindness. That’s why I use the term “public square Christians” - those who are loudest and the political screamers. They also happen to dominate the American scene when it comes to “Christian dialogue.”

[bad_teammate 13,195]

 

[troph 24,798]

[/url]  

 

If you’ll call one kid by a nickname or his or her middle name then you most certainly should call a trans kid by their preferred name.

 

The fact that trans is real, and that proper social and emotional support alleviates much of the anxiety and depression which in turn brings suicide risk down to almost nothing is lost on these assholes. Onward Christian soldiers though. Sheesh.

 

That guy was lucky to resign. He shoulda been fired.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Am I my brother's keeper?

Indeed.  

At a certain point, however, God is the only thing left willing to indulge their idiocy.

 

Matthew 18:15-17 ESV /

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

[troph 24,798]

I’m happy to take my chances with God

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, troph said:

I’m happy to take my chances with God

Very wise. The point of the post was not to say, "Have more faith in man."  Homey suggested it's my job to correct their behavior, which it is, but not forever.

 

and before some dumbass asks, " the brother who sins" in that passage is the bigot/ homophobe/ etc; not the victim of such behavior.

[jimmyjazz 45,953]

11 hours ago, Mole said:

Rightly or wrongly, there's a perception among many conservative Christians that much of the culture is increasingly antagonistic to them.

I can't imagine why this might be.  It's a puzzler, to be sure.

[Guest]

Personally, I embrace society marginalizing Christianity more and being “antagonistic” if that’s what is going to happen. I feel like Christianity m throughout history has always been stronger when it wasn’t in power and we didn’t have Christendom. Especially in the south when you have “Christians” who are socially/culturally Cristians because it’s part of the social fabric. E.g. nobody does business with the atheist lawyer or baker or car mechanic and everyone identifies as Christian because their mom and dad does, not die to an honestly sincerely held belief. I think it would be healthy and cut the chaff that Brisket talks about In Christianity from the wheat of those who take their relationship with God and spirituality seriously and aim to live rightly.

[Guest]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Personally, I embrace society marginalizing Christianity more and being “antagonistic” if that’s what is going to happen. I feel like Christianity m throughout history has always been stronger when it wasn’t in power and we didn’t have Christendom. Especially in the south when you have “Christians” who are socially/culturally Cristians because it’s part of the social fabric. E.g. nobody does business with the atheist lawyer or baker or car mechanic and everyone identifies as Christian because their mom and dad does, not due to an honestly sincerely held belief. I think it would be healthy and cut the chaff that Brisket talks about In Christianity from the wheat of those who take their relationship with God and spirituality seriously and aim to live rightly.

 

[Guest]

Dp 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

31 minutes ago, slorch said:

 Homey suggested it's my job to correct their behavior, which it is, but not forever.

I didn't suggest anything. I quoted the Bible. It's a dirty trick, I know.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I didn't suggest anything. I quoted the Bible. It's a dirty trick, I know.

Out of context, of course.

 

it doesn't matter though.  feel the burn Christians!!!

 

LOFL.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

It's not "feel the burn Christians!!!". It's, "Slorch, you're an idiot and a terrible representative of your faith."

[Guest]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not "feel the burn Christians!!!". It's, "Slorch, you're an idiot and a terrible representative of your faith."

How so?  because I do not buy in on your bullshit politics?

 

LOlz.

 

There'd be a lot of unemployed cops/ lawyers if people treated each other like Slorch does,  but carry the fuck on bro...