7 ms·

As a Christian I appreciate the bulk of this perspective. We can disagree (and probably do) about a lot of things all day long, but the second either of us atte

As a Christian I appreciate the bulk of this perspective. We can disagree (and probably do) about a lot of things all day long, but the second either of us attempts to coerce the other into doing something under threat of law (force) the line has been crossed.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
I'm also a christian and this whole thing is very clearly intended to enable oppression and harm to already marginalized groups. Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  > Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ Please justify this claim
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    No thank you maybe talk to your own priest about it if you have concerns about your spiritual conduct.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I dunno. A out of people were upset when they were forced to serve black people too, but I’m pretty sure that was a good idea.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  Except that there was never a Biblical reason as to not serve other races, which was the beauty of MLK's whole point.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    They can just start a new religion. It's been done.
    - brodouevencode 3y ago
      They're called cults and do not represent Christianity in any way.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > They're called cults It doesn't matter what you call them, it just matters whether the Supreme Court protects them. > do not represent Christianity in any way Hence the phrase "a new religion".
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    Well fuck, if some old book makes the rules for who we can discriminate against, I guess that makes it okay!
nerdjon 3y ago
I want to be very clear about my prospective here. If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. If I were to ask you to cater my wedding, thats a different story since you are actively partaking in something. I am fine with that. I just really want to make sure that this is not misconstrued.
- brodouevencode 3y ago
  I agree with you. I think that you'll find most Christian business owners will not turn away any customer based on their features or lifestyle until they are put into the position of active participation. By forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding then you're asking them to participate (some may even call this "support") in a lifestyle of which they disagree. Also not okay.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  > If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. This is literally the exact argument that has been used in both of these cases. Well, except in this case the site was literally made up and the supreme court fell for a fake case with zero standing.
  - davidhaymond 3y ago
    Cooking may be an art in one sense of the word, but it generally does not communicate a message. Neither does an off-the-shelf cake from a bakery. A custom wedding cake iced with a message, however, is protected speech.
  - flutas 3y ago
    > Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. Except it wasn't. If you know the cake case, they ruled that there was nothing wrong because they offered to sell them an off the shelf cake, they just refused to write a message they didn't support. > Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Facts_of_the_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

giraffe_lady 3y ago

I'm also a christian and this whole thing is very clearly intended to enable oppression and harm to already marginalized groups. Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ.

brodouevencode 3y ago
> Supporting this decision is to spit in the face of christ Please justify this claim
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  No thank you maybe talk to your own priest about it if you have concerns about your spiritual conduct.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

I dunno. A out of people were upset when they were forced to serve black people too, but I’m pretty sure that was a good idea.

brodouevencode 3y ago
Except that there was never a Biblical reason as to not serve other races, which was the beauty of MLK's whole point.
- lapcat 3y ago
  They can just start a new religion. It's been done.
  - brodouevencode 3y ago
    They're called cults and do not represent Christianity in any way.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > They're called cults It doesn't matter what you call them, it just matters whether the Supreme Court protects them. > do not represent Christianity in any way Hence the phrase "a new religion".
- ok_dad 3y ago
  Well fuck, if some old book makes the rules for who we can discriminate against, I guess that makes it okay!

nerdjon 3y ago

I want to be very clear about my prospective here. If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. If I were to ask you to cater my wedding, thats a different story since you are actively partaking in something. I am fine with that. I just really want to make sure that this is not misconstrued.

brodouevencode 3y ago
I agree with you. I think that you'll find most Christian business owners will not turn away any customer based on their features or lifestyle until they are put into the position of active participation. By forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding then you're asking them to participate (some may even call this "support") in a lifestyle of which they disagree. Also not okay.
fzeroracer 3y ago
> If I walk into your restaurant and you refuse to serve me for lunch because I was gay. That is no ok. Me being gay has nothing to do with you serving me lunch. I don't care about your beliefs. Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. This is literally the exact argument that has been used in both of these cases. Well, except in this case the site was literally made up and the supreme court fell for a fake case with zero standing.
- davidhaymond 3y ago
  Cooking may be an art in one sense of the word, but it generally does not communicate a message. Neither does an off-the-shelf cake from a bakery. A custom wedding cake iced with a message, however, is protected speech.
- flutas 3y ago
  > Why not? Cooking is as much of an art as baking a cake and ergo they should have the right to deny serving you food under their right to free expression. Except it wasn't. If you know the cake case, they ruled that there was nothing wrong because they offered to sell them an off the shelf cake, they just refused to write a message they didn't support. > Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Facts_of_the_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...