Hear Hear for the Cake shop owner. It's difficult to put up with such hatred, when they say you are the hateful person, when they are actually the ones full of hate.The one homo-guy says this: Mullins then cursed the owner, “f*** you and your homophobic cake shop.”And so then he goes and protests? It's an upside down world of darkness ain't it.I like how the owner of the business said he hopes these same people would come and buy birthday cakes and other types of bakery items from him.A good Christian man. Lord bless him. And have mercy on those full of fornication and pride. Amen.
Perusing the comments on that article, we see that a lot of people have a hard time telling the difference between discriminating against the customer, and discriminating against what the customer wants to buy.Look, if the store doesn't sell "gay" wedding cakes, then they don't sell 'em, regardless of whether the customers that want 'em are "gay" or straight. I'm sure that if a "gay" customer came into the store and wanted to buy something that the store does sell, the owner would be happy to make the sale.
I don't think these kinds of distinctions are going to be persuasive, Mike. They seem artifical and/or ad hoc.I think if one is going to defend the cake owner's right to refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake (or sell a couple a gay wedding cake, if you want to spin it that way) they should do this by defending the right of business owners to do business or refuse to do business with whomever they please. One commenter, Joe Distefano, on the article was trying to trap people in a reductio ad absurdum on this account: well then you have to say an atheist could refuse to do business with Christians. But I don't think this is absurd at all. I agree: if an atheist doesn't want to trade with me, he doesn't have to. So Joe's reductio won't work on me and like minded individuals. Other commenters pointed this out. Joe's only response was rhetorical incredulity at repealing the Civil Rights Act... but so what? That's not an argument.Another approach one could take is to say that trade discrimination based on race, religion, or sex is wrong. But not all forms of trade discrimination are wrong and homosexuality is one of those forms of trade discrimination that is not wrong.
“Everyone has the same rights,” one protestor told television station KDVR. “A gay wedding cake, a straight wedding cake – it’s the same thing.”I had another thought about this statement. Doesn't a wedding cake have a bride and groom decorating it?Two men, or two grooms doesn't a wedding cake make. Check out the meaning of wedding.It really is absurd. Unless we change the meaning of absurd.
what's sad is gay rights and the gay movement harms women and children in soooo many ways too. having lived in the san francisco bay area i have seen it with my own eyes. i firmly believe homosexual rights is tied up with both homosexual and heteroxexual men wanting to have uncommitted sex and satisfy themselves. my experience is just that but i have seen a lot of damage. most heterosexual men i have met who support gay rights would also advocate against monogamous marriages meant to last a lifetime. this is why i think heterosexual men supporting homosexual rights is self-serving cause it gives these heterosexual men a license to advocate against the traditional view of marriage that's best for families and our society.it is sad but this is our sex-crazed culture. i know it is counterintuitive to say but i believe men (and women!) would be more sexually fulfilled within the "bounds" of marriage.sadly most lesbians i have met are women from broken families who are very confused and need our prayers and support but also repentance from their sins. and only God can save them (just like us).
The following article, posted here a few days ago, seems to confirm several of your points: http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/what-sort-of-marriages-do-homosexual-people-want
"I don't think these kinds of distinctions are going to be persuasive, Mike. They seem artifical and/or ad hoc.I think if one is going to defend the cake owner's right to refuse to sell a gay couple a wedding cake (or sell a couple a gay wedding cake, if you want to spin it that way) they should do this by defending the right of business owners to do business or refuse to do business with whomever they please. "IMHO, they're not ad hoc. And what you state is not an either-or situation. Businesses should have the right to choose with whom they do business, within certain bounds (ie. on the basis of ethics. A Jewish business should not be forced to do business with Klansmen or Nazis. I'm not so sure about race).But consider the following: you can't equate a bookstore that refuses to sell porn with a book store that will not serve racial minorities. That's a valid distinction it seems to me and not at all ad hoc. In the first case, anyone can come in and buy anything the store has to offer.To refuse to sell a gay wedding cake is the same sort of thing. Telling 2 male customers, "Come in, buy whatever you like that I offer in this shop. But I might not have what you want".There are cases that correspond to what you describe: remember New Mexico photographer who refused to do a lesbian "wedding", and with another baker who refused to provide "gay" cupcakes to a homosexual college group for an event.But I think these can be defended on the basis of freedom of religion. The homosexuals in these two cases were trying to bully Christians in to participating in something that would violate their conscience.
Andiron,I never said it had to be either-or, but only that the one explanation looks artifical and/or ad hoc. If you want to add an artificial/ad hoc explanation to another one so that it's a both-and... fine, but now it's just a bad explanation combined with another one.I'm curios why you think a business should not be allowed to refuse to do business with someone on basis of race. Let's say I want to trade my Pokemon cards for a pack of gum. A white guy comes up to me and offers me a pack of gum, but me, being a racist, refuse to trade with the white guy. Should the government force me to do the trade? If so why and if not why does this change when we are talking about a business?I call the distinction ad hoc because the business owner in question said he didn't make wedding cakes for gay weddings, not that he didn't make gay wedding cakes. Presumably, he would have refused to sell them a "straight" wedding cake too. And that further indicates some ad hocness. Wedding cakes aren't necessarily gay or straight. They can be themed in different ways, however. There is obviously a distinction between going into a gun shop and demanding they sell you lingerie and going into a cake show and asking for an x-themed cake. Now if your explanation is non-artificial/ad hoc and legitimate, then a black straight couple could have requested the owner for an African American themed cake and been refused on the basis that the cake shop doesn't sell "black cakes." Would anyone accept that sort of parsing of the issue? I doubt it. It seems to me that the basis on which a cake shop owner might be able to get away with this actually goes back to what I suggested: a person has a right to do business or refuse to do business with whomever he pleases.