Inspector Javert
Active Member
...............
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I Own A Business...
- Thread starter HAMel
- Start date
Regardless of your reasons not meeting Matt's expectations, I agree with you, and would do the same out of Biblical principles. It is my right to say know, as much as it is their right to marry. I just don't want to be part of or party to making their happy day memorable, because if they know I am a Christian, they will make mention that a Christian baked their cake, and that would lead them and others to think I gave my "cake" or stamp of approval to their sinful union!
I could not care less what business owners decide to do. What rankles (my New Word of the Day :tongue3
me is others insulting those whose convictions require them to not participate in any way... including providing commercial services....and what "rankles" me are others insulting those of us whose convictions don't match up to their's. As if "they" have cornered the market on convictions! Hypocrite comes to mind.
I was asked why did I start this thread to begin with. :BangHead:
Why not start it? Does one need a consensus to start a thread? The approval of a select few?
I was told, this post says much about me. Translated, this means that I don't match up to those "convictions" the poster has. Hypocrite comes to mind.
...some of you folks are so funny. Can you even bend at the waist?
I was asked why did I start this thread to begin with. :BangHead:
Why not start it? Does one need a consensus to start a thread? The approval of a select few?
I was told, this post says much about me. Translated, this means that I don't match up to those "convictions" the poster has. Hypocrite comes to mind.
...some of you folks are so funny. Can you even bend at the waist?
No one is refusing service to gays. They are refusing service for a particular event. I am sure that in each of the cases where a wedding service was refused, they would (and I know in the case of one of the florists, they have many times) be happy to serve them.
But let me ask you this. You are an HVAC contractor. Would you service an adult shop? A brothel? An abortion clinic? The headquarters for NAMBLA?
Wrong. What that post says about you has nothing to do with your opinion on the matter. It shows your eagerness to insult those who disagree with you. The post that this quote is from reinforces that.
And before you comment about my convictions, perhaps you should know what they are before calling me a hypocrite. I have yet to declare what they are.
Quote my personal insult. Or even the evil that I "offered up".
Last edited by a moderator:
What are the two evils?
The two evils are...
1, You're right and I'm wrong.
2, I'm right and you're wrong.
You immediately took exception to little ole' me's position and didn't hesitate to tell me so. That's fine as to each, their own. I shared my position and you shared yours. That's called an exchange of ideas. In my opinion however you came across as holier-than-me. Okay, good for you.
Let me put it to you this way. I belong to a Baptist Church and sit under a pastor that has taught me more in the past four years than all the pastors I've ever been under since 1972.
In our church we have a couple of Gossipers. Why, heaven forbid..., we have two couples that have been married before and recently, we had a couple visit for a few weeks that live together AND THEY AIN'T EVEN MARRIED.
I'm quite sure we've some other (including myself) that aren't what we should be but, I've been, and will remain..., friendly and cordial to those referenced above. That being, those gossipers, the married twice and the unmarried couple.
Yes, over the years I have caught myself sitting in judgement of others. Why, I've probably sinned with the best of 'em..., but I've come to realize over the years that I am where I am because of the Grace of God and NOT because of anything I've ever done to earn any favors. Praise the Lord.
So, if I did in fact own a bakery and was asked to bake a cake I'd bake it. I'd be cordial and pleasant and friendly to all my customers.
Would I refuse to bake a cake for an alcoholic that's on his way to hell? One that's hopelessly addicted to Crack Cocaine? A man that has been married three times? A gossiper from YOUR church? No, to all the above.
...now if any of the above were to invite me to their festivities I'd respectfully decline.
For all those who want to take exception to my position then have at it. I'm NOT going to change to appease my critics. If the Lord finds fault with my reasoning the HE will speak to me about it. In the meantime..., I've got a cake to bake. :thumbsup:
1, You're right and I'm wrong.
2, I'm right and you're wrong.
You immediately took exception to little ole' me's position and didn't hesitate to tell me so. That's fine as to each, their own. I shared my position and you shared yours. That's called an exchange of ideas. In my opinion however you came across as holier-than-me. Okay, good for you.
Let me put it to you this way. I belong to a Baptist Church and sit under a pastor that has taught me more in the past four years than all the pastors I've ever been under since 1972.
In our church we have a couple of Gossipers. Why, heaven forbid..., we have two couples that have been married before and recently, we had a couple visit for a few weeks that live together AND THEY AIN'T EVEN MARRIED.
I'm quite sure we've some other (including myself) that aren't what we should be but, I've been, and will remain..., friendly and cordial to those referenced above. That being, those gossipers, the married twice and the unmarried couple.
Yes, over the years I have caught myself sitting in judgement of others. Why, I've probably sinned with the best of 'em..., but I've come to realize over the years that I am where I am because of the Grace of God and NOT because of anything I've ever done to earn any favors. Praise the Lord.
So, if I did in fact own a bakery and was asked to bake a cake I'd bake it. I'd be cordial and pleasant and friendly to all my customers.
Would I refuse to bake a cake for an alcoholic that's on his way to hell? One that's hopelessly addicted to Crack Cocaine? A man that has been married three times? A gossiper from YOUR church? No, to all the above.
...now if any of the above were to invite me to their festivities I'd respectfully decline.
For all those who want to take exception to my position then have at it. I'm NOT going to change to appease my critics. If the Lord finds fault with my reasoning the HE will speak to me about it. In the meantime..., I've got a cake to bake. :thumbsup:
Would you bake a cake to celebrate alcoholism? Would you bake a cake to celebrate those going to hell? to celebrate addiction to crack? to celebrate these other things?
That's the point that myself and some others are trying to make. The point being it's not the act of the baking the cake for a particular person that is the issue, it's that the cake will be utilized to celebrate a sinful activity.
I once again pose the question (which no one will address), why do you think it is OK for a pastor to refuse to conduct a ceremony but don't think it is ok for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for the same ceremony?
That is precisely what is in view. Refusing services to someone because they are gay. As I said before, one would have to inquire of every customer of their orientation to make this a guiding principle in business. If supplying a cake to a gay wedding is supporting it when one knows, then supplying it when one doesn't know is sin as well. Would a Jew take a perspective that it's okay to eat unclean meats as long as he didn't know about it?
Let's take it a little further: how about supplying a cake for a wedding between a man and his adulteress?
Exactly how many weddings every year are performed that meet that criteria? I'm sure more than gay weddings. So will those that refuse to "glorify" or endorse gay weddings also refuse an equally sinful wedding ceremony that is not sanctioned by God?
As I said before, I would fault neither the one refusing to supply the service nor the one that does not see it as participation or endorsement. I would respect the decision of each and really I can reasons for both. I think each situation would be peculiar (pun intended, maybe, lol) to itself and not each one the same. If it were me that were the baker and just a cake were requested, no problem. If the cake were requested which I found obscene or offensive, like most people, refusal would be common sense. How many people can go to a baker and request an obscene cake? What are the chances they could find a baker willing to do it, despite the orientation of the one/s requesting it?
And if they were asked to deliver the cake and attend I could see a valid reason to refuse. But to bake a cake?
The question was asked about a male/male topper: I would not supply that.
Not sure what you mean by this.
No.
The difference, though, is that I am actually going to the place where the "event" is, rather than someone approaching me in my own environment. By going into that store I would expose myself to material that is not honoring to God or my wife. I have never actually been in one of those, though, even before I was saved. It would have been too embarrassing for me, lol.
In the case of our baker, though, they are bringing what the baker may or may not find offensive into his establishment, and as the owner he/she has the right to set guidelines as to what is going to transpire in their establishment.
Something to consider is that there are some gays who are very overt and are this way to goad those they feel protest their lifestyles and by extension them. I think some of these media spotlight instances are contrived and I am behind each owner that takes the position "No, I do not have to bake you a cake if I don't want to...this is my business. Not Burger King. Go somewhere else if you want to have it your way (pun intended again, maybe, lol)."
No, for the same reasons stated above.
Without question, yes, yes, yes.
The witnessing experiences I have in the field are something I live for. Debating an abortion doctor in person? Are you kidding?
Had to look this up.
No. No. No.
I can't even believe there is such an organization, though I have spoken to atheists that were in favor of lowering the age of marriageability, and believe it or not most of the other atheists set on this person and rebuked him.
Again, what you fail to distinguish in your questions is that there is a difference between going to the place where those whose lifestyles are offensive and them coming into a business establishment, which despite the foggy notions of the President are mostly built from the ground up by someone. Small business is what America runs on, not the big corporations as some might think.
I know I have built my company...by myself. Still building it...by myself (because it's hard to find good help in my trade, it's a tough one).
As I said before, it is the right of each business owner to use discretion as to what they will and will not do. Hamel has every right to bake a cake and the truth is it is doubtful that those seeking such services will be impacted by refusal. Possible, but doubtful, because it is likely the scenario is contrived in the first place in an attempt to further the agenda and the pursuit of special, not equal rights.
I am sure there are scenarios that could arrive where I might refuse service, such as the brothel or other establishments you mention, however, opportunities to witness to people are something that I look forward to in the field, and seldom do I get the chance to witness concerning the more volatile political issues. I thank God for each instance where I do get the chance to witness, and look forward to each and every one, because that is when I feel the Lord's presence the strongest.
A thought did occur to me that Hamel could place a store policy statement in his store which would explain something like...
"We are a Christian based service. We will provide our services to those who are in opposition to our faith but we ask that our beliefs and views be respected and anyone whose views or religion are in opposition to the principles we live by understand that the right to refuse service remains ours if a request violates those principles."
That could curtail a media moment for the more aggressive special rights activists, lol.
God bless.
If you reread my comments, you will note that I did not declare my position. I will say, though, that I did and still do think that you were wrong to insult others who do not share in your personal convictions.
Your presumption was wrong.
Hamel (and whoever might like to comment), had a thought: how about business owners posting a policy statement in their store which might read something like...
"We are a Christian based service. We will provide our services to those who are in opposition to our faith but we ask that our beliefs and views be respected and anyone whose views or religion are in opposition to the principles we live by understand that the right to refuse service remains ours if a request violates those principles."
God bless.
"We are a Christian based service. We will provide our services to those who are in opposition to our faith but we ask that our beliefs and views be respected and anyone whose views or religion are in opposition to the principles we live by understand that the right to refuse service remains ours if a request violates those principles."
God bless.
A sign like that would invite trouble.
Nevermind. I think this sign is probably ok.
Two questions:
Has Hamel stated it is not right for others to refuse?
What do you do for a living?
Maybe three, lol: do you feel that every baker, or person offering a service to the public should inquire into the lifestyles of everyone they provide the service for and after doing so, refuse to bake cakes for anyone who violates Christian Doctrine?
Adultery receives quite a bit more rebuke in Scripture than homosexuality yet I don't see any bandwagons addressing that sin. It would be equally wrong to make a cake for a heterosexual couple that were adulterers...shall we demand details of the relationship before agreeing to provide the service?
If we used the same guidelines to refuse service to homosexuals then we would have nobody to provide the services to.
Unless you know of a population that has no sin, then the bakers could move there and problem solved.
God bless.
Wedding cakes are always delivered by the bakery. Unless it's a small regular cake, usually the cakes are too complex to allow someone to just pick it up.
I'm sorry. I left an incomplete thought. What I was saying was that in each of these instances, the gay customer would be gladly served for any other event. I know in one of the instances, the gay man was a regular customer of the florist and they had a relationship developed. But the florist wouldn't provide flowers for the wedding and thus was sued. I'm sure the baker wouldn't care one bit if one of the gay men came in to pick up a cake for a birthday or to pick up some bread or anything like that. So it's not that these businesses are discriminating against gay people but instead choosing to not provide a product for a particular event. BIG difference.
It's a fallacy to believe that we would have to ask everyone what their orientation is.
In the example of the wedding cake, if two men or two women came in and said "it's for our wedding," then it's obvious. If the requester asked for something to be written on the cake (not normally done, but we're talking hypotheticals, right?) such as "Dave and Dave," then it's obvious.
If it's not obvious, then asking people their orientation is intrusive, and selectively discriminating.
I liken it to the police equivalent of "excited utterance": There was no need to search your car until you blurted out that there's nothing in the trunk.
-----
Oh, and this comparison of adultery to homosexuality: No one's trying to make adultery legal or morally acceptable. So that comparison fails.
In the example of the wedding cake, if two men or two women came in and said "it's for our wedding," then it's obvious. If the requester asked for something to be written on the cake (not normally done, but we're talking hypotheticals, right?) such as "Dave and Dave," then it's obvious.
If it's not obvious, then asking people their orientation is intrusive, and selectively discriminating.
I liken it to the police equivalent of "excited utterance": There was no need to search your car until you blurted out that there's nothing in the trunk.
-----
Oh, and this comparison of adultery to homosexuality: No one's trying to make adultery legal or morally acceptable. So that comparison fails.
Last edited by a moderator: