As if drunkenness is the only other sin? Come on WW, think a bit here. You don't think Christian bakers ever get asked to provide cakes for extremely opulent weddings? To bake cakes for obvious gluttons? For a guy or woman who's on their fifth marriage? For a bride who's clearly pregnant?
Your examples are quite poor and reflect a very flawed logic. First, bakers generally aren't aware of what is being spent on or is taking place during a wedding ceremony when they are baking a cake. I am sure if the gay couple had not mentioned the two of them were getting married, there would have been no conflict of conscience for the baker. Its not like the baker investigates the wedding details of every wedding. Moreover, the cake is for the wedding party, not generally for the married couple. There is no way to gauge if people are "gluttons." If they are overweight, it may be because of a bad thyroid, or perhaps they are on a diet and don't plan on eating any of the cake. Maybe a guy is on his fifth marriage (not that the baker would know) and all his previous wives were unfaithful. So what if a bride is pregnant? Maybe they had a moment of weakness and are making their relationship right by exchanging vows. If anything, marriage is the proper response to such a circumstance rather than not committing to one another.
The point is, there are sins that occur during a wedding or prior to a wedding....and a baker has no control over that. He is not a participant in those sins because he cannot control them and is not actively engaged in them by supplying materials that aid in the sinful acts. He has no control over whether people will eat or drink too much and he has no control, and likely no knowledge over what is spent. He can bake a cake in good conscience because his role in the event itself is not sinful. He is not aiding in any sinful act by providing a cake. The sinful acts people do at a wedding have nothing to do with what the baker is doing. The wedding for a gay couple is sinful in the very event itself. It's like letting someone borrow your car for the purpose of robbing a bank. You are participating in the sin because you are providing something that is aiding in the committing of a sinful act. He can bake a cake for gay people (as he was willing to do) even through they are sinners. His cake does not promote their sin. It has nothing to do with their sin. A wedding cake does promote and participate in the sinful act of a gay wedding. That is the difference....once again.
Also, your logic is flawed because you are trying to defend one sin by claiming another is excused. Saying that other people sin is no excuse to participate in another known sin. I can just see that conversation before the Lord. "Why did you participate in this activity you know I abhor?" "Oh, well I baked a cake for a wedding once where people ate too much, so I didn't think you would mind." Come on now.
Finally, your logic is flawed because the issue is the conscience of the baker. Maybe the baker did refuse to make a cake for an overly extravagant wedding once. I doubt he would have been sued or made national news. Either way, the baker has a conscience issue in participating in a gay wedding. It is sin for him to participate in it, even it God were to deem it acceptable (which I highly doubt). People should have the freedom to follow their conscience, especially on an issue that has been viewed to be an abomination by pretty much every major religion in the world for thousands of years.
That's just bizarre. If you're interested in resolving the conflict between religious beliefs and public accommodation, what means other than the court system do you propose we use?
Im really amazed this is so difficult for you to follow. I am not surprised that a secular culture would embrace homosexuality, legalize gay marriage and force business people to participate in these events with their buisnesses. Really, I am not surprised at all. I think its wrong and it flies in the face of our forefathers intent for religious liberty. Personally, I think they are rolling in their graves. My point is that we should be allowed to follow the Scriptures and our consciences and there are legal means to allow people to follow their consciences and not discriminate. Your argument seems to be that we can only have one or the other in the public business realm, which I think is a silly view, especially for a Christian. I am not surprised a judge would rule against a man striving to be faithful to his God in our culture. I think there are rational legal ways to avert these problems, but our culture is not really interested in a business person's faith. What surprises me is how many Christians have become so calloused and numb to the evil around them that not only do they defend it, but they demand Christians participate in it.
You said, "By your rationale, we shouldn't even discuss these matters because what the court says should silence any and all discussion. The courts are not God." I never said the courts are God or that there can be no further discussion.
Your implication was that the courts already decided my view was stupid so therefore the issue is settled.
I have explained why your argument (that the Colorado baker's refusal to sell a cake for a gay wedding is based on the event, not the sexual orientation of the couple) is stupid several times in this thread. Perhaps you should go back and re-read.
Yes, I have seen your arguments amount to: its bigotry, bigotry, bigotry...I think you've said this about 5x (to which I answered the issue is not the person but the event. A heterosexual would have been denied wanting a cake for a gay wedding), other people sin in their wedding so why not participate in this sin (which I have shown is pure nonsense), and the courts think you are stupid. Did I miss one?
Yet it's only this one sin that seems to register. Funny how that works.
Well, its a sin that people are trying to demand others participate in, accept and celebrate. There is a reason it is a hot-button issue. If there were spouse abuse parades going on and courts were legalizing this activity, it would likely be something that would become a national focus. I dont think its funny that people are trying to legitimize homosexuality and that Christians are being sued, maligned, and accused of hate-speech for resisting to embrace this lifestyle as normative, acceptable to God and something they should promote and participate in with their buisnesses.
