Bakery Case

[Darth Ovious]

If a gay person wants to get married then that is up to them and I will not stand in their way, but my own belief is that Christian marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore I would never make a cake that would be used in a rally supporting gay marriage. Especially not if my bakery was known to be Christian as how could I be sure that the people who got the cake would not make a big deal about that to give the impression that I thought there was absolutely nothing wrong with gay marriage - doing that kind of thing is deceptive and abusive. So while you may not see a difference, to me there is a big difference between allowing people to make their own choices about things (ie getting married or not) and making sure that liberality on my part is not abused so as to pay lip-service to the issue at a much deeper level with which I do not agree. In other words while I respect everyones right to choice I still have very definite opinions on the matter and I am not going to have my opinion rail-roaded over.

Their business could get hurt by that as well since they might lose out on their normal business since they promote themselves as a Christian business. So Christians seeing this might mean that they won't do business there any more.

[Paprika]

I can't think of a case where people have ever been taking to court for thinking something, or holding an opinion.

Then you're pretty ignorant.

[Sparko]

The judge and activists have opened themselves up to a huge copyright lawsuit.

The Jim Henson company owns the copyright to Bert and Ernie and their image is not allowed to be used for commercial purposes (like being sold in a bakery) without permission. They have also said previously that Bert and Ernie are just friends and not gay (they don't want to be involved in such topics since the muppets were designed for children)

Trying to force the baker's to break the copyright law means the Judge and activist could be sued. If I were the baker's attorney, I would contact the Jim Henson company and let them know what happened. I bet that fine gets dropped real fast.


---

Are they gay?

It's the age-old (well, several-years-old) question intriguing fans of muppets Bert and Ernie. Today, Sesame Street weighed in on Facebook:

"Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves.

"Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bert-...ry?id=14285027

[firstfloor]

“The problem is that religious conservatives have a hard time recognising this. They want to have things both ways, to appeal to a culture of equality and respect for difference while insisting on legal inequality and institutionalised discrimination. They want sympathy for being a persecuted minority without themselves showing any sympathy for minorities who have been persecuted for centuries. They want to claim rights for themselves that they will not concede to others.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fi...t-it-1.2199612

[hamster]

How were they discriminating? Were they baking gay marriage rainbow cakes for heterosexuals but refusing them for homosexuals?

[Jedidiah]

~shrug~ The penalty was 500 pounds. That's pretty small and it's not really going to break the bank for anyone concerned.

So you are saying wickedness is okay if it does not cost the victim too much?

[Abigail]

“The problem is that religious conservatives have a hard time recognising this. They want to have things both ways, to appeal to a culture of equality and respect for difference while insisting on legal inequality and institutionalised discrimination. They want sympathy for being a persecuted minority without themselves showing any sympathy for minorities who have been persecuted for centuries. They want to claim rights for themselves that they will not concede to others.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fi...t-it-1.2199612

This equally applies to gay people since they preach tolerance for themselves but are intolerant of Christians. The equality guru who was interviewed on the tv made the feeble statement that a gay would have to make a cake for Christians with a slogan saying 'support heterosexual marriage' This is disingenuous to say the least and just confirms my view that this whole episode was contrived. The baker couple did nothing to harm these people, they did not disrupt their gathering or anything.

[Abigail]

If Christian "identity" as you put it, is defined with reference to prejudice towards others, then I would say there is something pretty theologically dubious about your notion of Christian "identity".

Your bigotry is noted.

[DesertBerean]

What is this? International Beat Up the Baker Year?

[firstfloor]

What is this? International Beat Up the Baker Year?

It’s not about cakes or bakers. It is about testing anti-discrimination law.

[Starlight]

If Christian "identity" as you put it, is defined with reference to prejudice towards others, then I would say there is something pretty theologically dubious about your notion of Christian "identity".

Your bigotry is noted.

I don't understand your comment... I'm confused as to what you think bigotry is or why what I said has anything to do with bigotry.

Or is this just the typical accuse-others-of-whatever-crime-you-yourself-feel-most-guilty-of thing, which seems to happen regularly in these forums?

Christian identity is supposed to be about God, Christ, and love for others. The government insisting that Christian's don't subject gay people to discrimination and prejudice in the course of their business interactions, is hardly trampling all over their faith in Christ.

[Darth Ovious]

Christian identity is supposed to be about God, Christ, and love for others. The government insisting that Christian's don't subject gay people to discrimination and prejudice in the course of their business interactions, is hardly trampling all over their faith in Christ.

The discrimination is the other way around though. It's the guy demanding a service from someone who doesn't want to provide it. This is tantamount to slavery. People have a right to choose what they want to do and if they don't want to do something then why should you force them against their will?

[Epoetker]

It’s not about real and human things. It is about exercising unearned power in the pettiest way possible, by smashing something and getting away with it, and even getting told what a good boy you are for smashing it.

Am starting to wonder if baked bullying busybody smells good this time of year.

[Abigail]

I don't understand your comment... I'm confused as to what you think bigotry is or why what I said has anything to do with bigotry.

Or is this just the typical accuse-others-of-whatever-crime-you-yourself-feel-most-guilty-of thing, which seems to happen regularly in these forums?

Christian identity is supposed to be about God, Christ, and love for others. The government insisting that Christian's don't subject gay people to discrimination and prejudice in the course of their business interactions, is hardly trampling all over their faith in Christ.

Well, Christians do not believe homosexual activity is in the interests of the doer as per the Maker's manual so we would argue we are showing love when we say people should not engage in it.

When a person has a business he tries to build a reputation for that business which incorporates the principles he stands for etc. This is a Christian bakery and even the name is taken from the Bible. Once that cake left the shop the Christian would have no control over how the buyer combined the product with the principle - for all the baker knew it could have been used to give the impression of widespread Christian approval on the issue. You might argue that once the buyer has bought something it is no longer the sellers, but here it seems the seller was forced to sell and therefore never allowed control over his product/principle by which he runs his business.

[Starlight]

Christians do not believe homosexual activity is in the interests of the doer

There are plenty of Christians who think homosexual activity is totally fine.

I think if you surveyed those Christians who are opposed to homosexual activity, their reasons why they were opposed would vary. A lot of them would probably just say "it's a sin, because the bible says so", without having given the subject much further reflection.

What I'm getting at here, is that your idea that homosexual activity is not "in the interests of the doer" is quite a specific claim that I don't think is necessarily believed by the majority of Christians. It implies you might have some specific reasons why it's not in the interests of the doer. In my experience, most Christians who opposed homosexuality don't have any such specific reasons, but rather have the general notion that "it's wrong, cos the bible says so". I tend to find that if they actually sit down and try to think about specific reasons they quickly become much more supportive of gay rights because they quickly realize that there aren't really any good reasons to be anti-gay.