I Own A Business...

[Darrell C]

A sign like that would invite trouble.

I don't like the sign concept that much either because like I said earlier, it reminds me of the divisive signs we saw in the 60's. Imagine some small town where someone sees the letter outside a place of business and the idea catches fire and everyone agrees to do it. Slippery slope that has us moving backwards not forwards.

Company policies often have built in declarations that state refusal to engage in certain activities. There have been times in my own business where I have had to come right out and say "I can't and won't do that," usually dealing with insurance fraud. The owner has the right to state their religious beliefs to the public, and because it is a free market (or used to be)...customers can pick up the yellow pages and call/go somewhere else.

This relieves the possibility for contention and dispute because it is already public knowledge where the owner stands, and one of the primary issues, which a number in this thread have agreed to is...the owner's rights.

As opposed to the customer's rights to force an owner into something that violates their principles.

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and racism. Show me the religion that is openly racist (in it's doctrine) and I will show you a religion that does not prosper here in a America. The only place they would be in a population that is primarily that particular religion, and Islam is a good example. There would be a difference between a sign that says "I am a Christian, this is a Christian store, please respect that," and "We do not serve blacks, Jews, or Methodists."

In legal circles there are obvious conflicts that need no discussion. A lawyer, for example, is not expected to engage in criminal activity because it stands in contradiction to the System of Law. The same can be said for Christians, and it would be a strange thing to see a "Christian Adult Shop" or a "Christian Bar."

The bottom line is that each believer has to decide issues for themselves and each will be held accountable for their decisions. I do not see this as an issue that can be painted black or white, with one position available, because the issue entails too many variables that have to be examined such as the motivations on each side, for example. If I were a Baker I would have no objection to baking the cake, but I would hope I would use the opportunity to witness. The sign would be the first statement of witness to the prospective customer. Most would, I believe, find another store, perhaps taking offense at the statement, and those that wanted to push the issue would, I think, create the circumstances where I would have the opportunity for a more credible and direct witness, giving me the opportunity to be specific about what God says, not what I think.

I love a good debate, lol.


God bless.

 

[Use of Time]

Company policies often have built in declarations that state refusal to engage in certain activities. There have been times in my own business where I have had to come right out and say "I can't and won't do that," usually dealing with insurance fraud. The owner has the right to state their religious beliefs to the public, and because it is a free market (or used to be)...customers can pick up the yellow pages and call/go somewhere else.

This relieves the possibility for contention and dispute because it is already public knowledge where the owner stands, and one of the primary issues, which a number in this thread have agreed to is...the owner's rights.

As opposed to the customer's rights to force an owner into something that violates their principles.

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and racism. Show me the religion that is openly racist (in it's doctrine) and I will show you a religion that does not prosper here in a America. The only place they would be in a population that is primarily that particular religion, and Islam is a good example. There would be a difference between a sign that says "I am a Christian, this is a Christian store, please respect that," and "We do not serve blacks, Jews, or Methodists."

In legal circles there are obvious conflicts that need no discussion. A lawyer, for example, is not expected to engage in criminal activity because it stands in contradiction to the System of Law. The same can be said for Christians, and it would be a strange thing to see a "Christian Adult Shop" or a "Christian Bar."

The bottom line is that each believer has to decide issues for themselves and each will be held accountable for their decisions. I do not see this as an issue that can be painted black or white, with one position available, because the issue entails too many variables that have to be examined such as the motivations on each side, for example. If I were a Baker I would have no objection to baking the cake, but I would hope I would use the opportunity to witness. The sign would be the first statement of witness to the prospective customer. Most would, I believe, find another store, perhaps taking offense at the statement, and those that wanted to push the issue would, I think, create the circumstances where I would have the opportunity for a more credible and direct witness, giving me the opportunity to be specific about what God says, not what I think.

I love a good debate, lol.


God bless.

I pretty much agree with you and I already had edited my post after I realized we weren't talking about the signs discussed on the first page. The wording was a lot more reasonable on the posted memo you proposed.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C
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.

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.

And again it boils down to the decision of the particular baker. I am not going to fault someone that delivers the cake, nor the baker that refuses.

The primary sin involved in this would be a violation of the conscience of the believer, meaning, if he felt it was sin to provide and deliver the cake, and did it, then it would be sin for him/her. If they did not feel it was a sin to do so, then their conscience is not violated.

Perhaps the baker might feel that putting food on his table for his family takes precedence. Again, how many people order cakes that are not, for some reason or other...sinners?

1 Corinthians 5:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Now if a gay "Christian" came in buying a cake...drop the hammer! lol

Not sure what you mean by this.

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.

And the suit is probably covered by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Consider:


Indiana’s governor on Sunday defended the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which spawned immediate protests outside the state courthouse, business boycotts and a special Twitter hashtag, #boycottIndiana, after he signed it into law on Thursday.

The law, according to Governor Mike Pence, will prevent people’s religious beliefs from being intruded upon by the government. But critics have noted that the law technically allows businesses to refuse customers based on their sexual orientation.

Pence said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” that the law wouldn’t change and that the backlash had devolved into “shameless rhetoric.” He said if he “thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it.”


Who's a thunk Bill did something that might actually work in favor for Christians?

The lawsuit should be tossed out because the owner has rights as well. Many services declare their right to refuse service, I do not see how owner discretion can be impinged upon by the government, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.

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.

As a business owner...I'm on their side. As a Christian...I'm on their side.

But it is not for me to declare what any business owner's policy should be, it is the owner's right to dictate company policy, providing it falls within the Law of our land. And before special rights for homosexuals came into being, the religious liberty has been a staple in our country since before it was founded.

Time for Christians to meet the Homosexual Agenda (and other special rights groups) toe to toe, and the only way we combat sin is by the Word of God practiced in our lives, understood by us, and lived by us. The most powerful ally these groups have is the ignorance of the Christian and the failure to implement what the Word of God teaches in our lives. I include myself in that, not singling anyone out. As we grow in Christ, in grace, and in knowledge, we are better prepared that when such situations arise it does not turn into a media circus, but when the dust settles we leave no-one capable of pointing a credible finger at us that brings reproach upon Christ or Christianity.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I pretty much agree with you and I already had edited my post after I realized we weren't talking about the signs discussed on the first page. The wording was a lot more reasonable on the posted memo you proposed.

Sorry, didn't see your edit until after posting.

Many of my customers know I am a Christian and it is amusing when they avoid certain things like cussing, lol. The point is that there is often respect shown for our beliefs if our beliefs are made known. I think much of the media frenzy is a contrived campaign which just like every other campaign these special rights groups mount wallows in insincerity and manipulation of the emotions of both sides.

We can't afford to let emotion overcome the self control that we are not only commanded, but is a fruit of the Spirit within us. Sadly, the issue falls more into a political arena than where it deserves to be...critically analyzed by Bible believing Christians who do not let the media determine their views. The fact is that we do not make the decisions for other people, only ourselves, and by maintaining self control balanced with understanding of sin, we can address the issue better.


God bless.

 

[HAMel]

I also love a good debate. So many questions asked..., but one in particular asked my current position/job. I'm retired.

I also recall once representing a homosexual who had been unjustly fired. The reason for his termination was his boss (who had a thing for oriental women) trumped up several charges to support the termination simply to create a slot for his oriental friend. It wasn't right. We won. Did I embrace the homosexual afterwards? Attend his victory party? No. I saved his career and the rest of his life is up to him.

Now, let me provide you (in part) with the lyrics of an old country western tune that I know you're all familiar with. In fact, these lyrics could support a sound bible gospel message.

It went like this...

Well, there's Bobby Taylor sittin' there and seven times he's asked me for a date.

Mrs. Taylor sure seems to use a lot of ice whenever he's away

And Mr. Baker, can you tell us why your secretary had to leave this town?

And shouldn't widow Jones be told to keep her window shades all pulled completely down?

Well, Mr. Harper couldn't be here 'cause he stayed too long at Kelly's Bar again

And if you smell Shirley Thompson's breath, you'll find she's had a little nip of gin

Then you have the nerve to tell me you think that as a mother I'm not fit

Well, this is just a little Peyton Place and you're all Harper Valley hypocrites

The day my Mama socked it to the Harper Valley P.T.A.

...if I were a baker I'd bake 'em a cake. If I were asked to place an icon on top of the cake reflecting same sex I'd have to tell 'em, "Sorry, but I don't have any of those." If they pulled one out of their pocket and handed it to me I'd place where ever they wanted it put.

Rather than a "Sign" up front I'd probably have a Southern Gospel Radio Station playing for all my customers to listen to.

 

[JonC]

We have to be careful about our associations. Suppose we are seen conversing with a known adulteress, or dinning with sinners….we’d be advocating their sin….and a stumbling block to our brethren. After all, we have our reputations to maintain and our consciences to consider. Remember how Paul applauded Peter when Peter was in a similar situation and refused to eat with Gentiles. Peter stuck to his guns and followed his conscience so that even Paul couldn’t rebuke him.

This whole thing is man-centered legalism…squabbling over baking a cake because how a non-Christian may use it. I wonder if Paul was so selective in whose tents he mended. I think perhaps he had more pressing issues.

 

[Darrell C]

Remember how Paul applauded Peter when Peter was in a similar situation and refused to eat with Gentiles. Peter stuck to his guns and followed his conscience so that even Paul couldn’t rebuke him.

You are being facetious, right? lol

It does raise, again, the conscience of the believer. There are going to be those who have different views, and each situation also is likely to be different, so both sides might actually end up having those that do not maintain a rigid position, but their decisions would likely be decided by the aspects of the situation.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

I think a good Bible passage for this discussion is 1 Cor 7 and the idea of meat sacrificed to idols. Paul makes it clear that he would not eat the meat so as not to be a stumbling block to others. But he also says don't ask where meat has come from if you are given some meat. This I think carries over for all the people saying if you won't serve a gay wedding you have to ask about all your customer lifestyle.
If I was a baker or a photographer or a florist I would not do gay weddings, because I'm not going to put a stumbling block in front of others and my own personal conviction would not allow me to be a part of a sinful celebration like that.

 

[Darrell C]

I think a good Bible passage for this discussion is 1 Cor 7 and the idea of meat sacrificed to idols. Paul makes it clear that he would not eat the meat so as not to be a stumbling block to others. But he also says don't ask where meat has come from if you are given some meat. This I think carries over for all the people saying if you won't serve a gay wedding you have to ask about all your customer lifestyle.

Not really, because Paul makes it clear that idols are nothing and eating meat sacrificed to idols doesn't change the price of tea in China, lol.

It would be relevant if by providing services it causes a brother or sister to fail in their convictions, they being too weak to understand it from a proper perspective.

The standard remains the same, if one feels it is a sin to provide a cake for a gay wedding they need to practice that principle in regards to all sin, which means no cakes for the weddings where adulterers marry, no cakes for weddings where two religions inter-marry (to be specific a Christian marrying a Muslim, for example), no cakes the man who left his wife without biblical cause, et cetera. This would require enquiring into the lifestyles and circumstances of all customers.

If I was a baker or a photographer or a florist I would not do gay weddings, because I'm not going to put a stumbling block in front of others and my own personal conviction would not allow me to be a part of a sinful celebration like that.

A marriage is not a celebration, it is a ceremony. The celebration follows.

At least that has been the case for me, lol. Still celebrating after coming up on fifteen years. And during the celebration that initially followed, I restrained myself from pushing any of the cake into my wife's face.

Should the baker, florist, or photographer refuse to do Muslim weddings? After all, following false gods is a damnable practice as well.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

Not really, because Paul makes it clear that idols are nothing and eating meat sacrificed to idols doesn't change the price of tea in China, lol.

It would be relevant if by providing services it causes a brother or sister to fail in their convictions, they being too weak to understand it from a proper perspective.

The standard remains the same, if one feels it is a sin to provide a cake for a gay wedding they need to practice that principle in regards to all sin, which means no cakes for the weddings where adulterers marry, no cakes for weddings where two religions inter-marry (to be specific a Christian marrying a Muslim, for example), no cakes the man who left his wife without biblical cause, et cetera. This would require enquiring into the lifestyles and circumstances of all customers.





A marriage is not a celebration, it is a ceremony. The celebration follows.

At least that has been the case for me, lol. Still celebrating after coming up on fifteen years. And during the celebration that initially followed, I restrained myself from pushing any of the cake into my wife's face.

Should the baker, florist, or photographer refuse to do Muslim weddings? After all, following false gods is a damnable practice as well.


God bless.

I disagree with you saying this passage is not relevant obviously since I posted it
In my mind since Marriage is a theological institution there is no such thing as Gay marriage, just like Paul acknowledge there are no other gods. But there are people who do not realize that marriage is theological so giving endorsement of a gay marriage by being involved such as baking a cake would be stumbling block.

I agree If they know the circumstances around each wedding then they should follow their convictions. I would not be involved in a wedding of a believer to an unbelievers either if I knee that to be the case.

I would not be involved in a religious marriage of two Muslims either.

 

[Rolfe]

Company policies often have built in declarations that state refusal to engage in certain activities. There have been times in my own business where I have had to come right out and say "I can't and won't do that," usually dealing with insurance fraud. The owner has the right to state their religious beliefs to the public, and because it is a free market (or used to be)...customers can pick up the yellow pages and call/go somewhere else.

This relieves the possibility for contention and dispute because it is already public knowledge where the owner stands, and one of the primary issues, which a number in this thread have agreed to is...the owner's rights.

As opposed to the customer's rights to force an owner into something that violates their principles.

There is a difference between stating one's beliefs and racism. Show me the religion that is openly racist (in it's doctrine) and I will show you a religion that does not prosper here in a America. The only place they would be in a population that is primarily that particular religion, and Islam is a good example. There would be a difference between a sign that says "I am a Christian, this is a Christian store, please respect that," and "We do not serve blacks, Jews, or Methodists."

In legal circles there are obvious conflicts that need no discussion. A lawyer, for example, is not expected to engage in criminal activity because it stands in contradiction to the System of Law. The same can be said for Christians, and it would be a strange thing to see a "Christian Adult Shop" or a "Christian Bar."

The bottom line is that each believer has to decide issues for themselves and each will be held accountable for their decisions. I do not see this as an issue that can be painted black or white, with one position available, because the issue entails too many variables that have to be examined such as the motivations on each side, for example. If I were a Baker I would have no objection to baking the cake, but I would hope I would use the opportunity to witness. The sign would be the first statement of witness to the prospective customer. Most would, I believe, find another store, perhaps taking offense at the statement, and those that wanted to push the issue would, I think, create the circumstances where I would have the opportunity for a more credible and direct witness, giving me the opportunity to be specific about what God says, not what I think.

I love a good debate, lol.


God bless.

Do you think that those who are opposed to the principles of someone who would post a sign like that would respect them? When I made the comment about inviting trouble, I was referring to people who do not care about the opinions of those that conflict with their agenda. They will test by pushing against indicated policy. Though I do not know if a sign was posted, I think that we have already seen this occur in the much-publicized case of the "pair" who wanted the baker to make them a cake.

 

[JonC]

You are being facetious, right? lol

:smilewinkgrin: Yes.


Let's say I'm selling running shoes and a pro-LGBT relay was planned in my town.....never mind.:tonofbricks::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Darrell C]

I disagree with you saying this passage is not relevant obviously since I posted it
In my mind since Marriage is a theological institution there is no such thing as Gay marriage, just like Paul acknowledge there are no other gods. But there are people who do not realize that marriage is theological so giving endorsement of a gay marriage by being involved such as baking a cake would be stumbling block.

I agree If they know the circumstances around each wedding then they should follow their convictions. I would not be involved in a wedding of a believer to an unbelievers either if I knee that to be the case.

I would not be involved in a religious marriage of two Muslims either.

Relevant, yes, but not a parallel in that whereas we are free to eat meat sacrificed to idols unless it cause a brother or sister to fall, in the case of providing a service we do not have definite terms which determine each person's view and whether there is a concrete and universal principle we can look to, such as the case of the meat.

And just as there is meat sacrificed to idols...there is gay marriage. Just like there are brothels, adult shops, and donut shops.



But the question remains: it is equally damnable for a person to worship false gods so would a wedding for another religion constitute refusal of service so that one not "advocate that particular religion. In their eyes their god sanctions and institutes the bond between those being married. How about the adulterers that marry? Refuse?

For me the bottom line, from a Christian perspective, is each believer must take the position they feel is right, and we should accept their decision. I applaud those who have refused service based on their view and believe it is their right to refuse apart from persecution or involvement of the government. Again, if it is racially motivated I might take issue with that, as I do not see that as a valid reason for refusing service. But the difference is that homosexuality is offensive to those of us who believe in traditional unions and our views on it may not mean anything to unbelievers or liberals, but our views and how we live life are just as important as those who live in ways we do not approve of.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Do you think that those who are opposed to the principles of someone who would post a sign like that would respect them? When I made the comment about inviting trouble, I was referring to people who do not care about the opinions of those that conflict with their agenda. They will test by pushing against indicated policy. Though I do not know if a sign was posted, I think that we have already seen this occur in the much-publicized case of the "pair" who wanted the baker to make them a cake.

Like I said, I think this is a manipulated and calculated campaign of the homosexual agenda. It is no different than when people take advantage of events like a white cop shooting a black guy.

Since when does anyone think they can walk into a business establishment and dictate policy to the store? You can't even get certain burger joints to make a burger the way you want it anymore, lol.

Certain, or perhaps all, special rights groups take advantage of any occasion to further their cause. With the right media spin a situation can be blown out of proportion for the purpose of gaining more ground.

What amazes me is the public reaction, which often is not a consensus of Americans, but is touted as though it is.

I'm amazed, for instance, when rioting and looting take place because a group is irate about something...the Law seems to go out the window. Not going to go out and lock it down, and make arrests, because that might incite more anger.

Really?

I don't know, all I can say is that we need to make sure we don't get caught up in their tactics, where our actions might be construed to be as trifling as theirs, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

:smilewinkgrin: Yes.


Let's say I'm selling running shoes and a pro-LGBT relay was planned in my town.....never mind.:tonofbricks::smilewinkgrin:

lol

If that were the case, do what all the stores do: mark everything up 100% then give a 30% discount...

 

[OnlyaSinner]

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.

Quite surprised at the final statement. Sure, nobody is proposing new laws stating that adultery is okay, but the entertainment industry is constantly presenting that view, and with clear intent, IMO. And large portions of our society are "voting with their feet" as it were, participating shamelessly in sexual conduct that is clearly declared sin in scripture.

 

[nodak]

What we see happening among Christian business owners who do not want to provide services for gay weddings is that they quit doing all weddings.

And for that matter, some are opting out of funerals also.

They will sell you a cake, not decorated for any type of wedding. Or they stopped doing large cakes altogether. They will sell you flower arrangements but you pick them up for any "events", or they sell flowers but do not do "event" arrangements. You want to come in and order 300 roses, 50 sprays of baby's breath, some greenery, etc., fine and good no questions asked.

Bed and breakfasts have it harder. They cannot refuse a room to John and John but they can refuse all weddings and wedding parties. A few have become word of mouth private guests by invitation only arrangements.

They are willing to take the hit in the pocketbooks.

And some customers want to support them, so actually buy more "nonevent" goods to make up the loss for them. Other customers don't want anyone FORCED to serve gay weddings and so are opting for only home or church weddings, with homemade cakes and home flower arrangements, or no flowers at all and no cakes.

Sort of like the state of North Dakota. Every time they pass abortion restrictions the courts knock them down. But good luck working as physicians in that state if it gets out you perform abortions. No one can make Sue Smith go to Dr. John Jones if she doesn't want to go there.

My aunt made her living being a live in landlord, first with apartment complexes and then in retirement with a duplex.

Long before the gay agenda came out of the closet, she decided she did not want to rent to gays, lesbians, or cohabiting straight couples. She also knew she could not discriminate. So she took the loss and closed up the other side of her house. Hasn't rented it in years, and doesn't plan on it, even though it costs her dearly.

 

[padredurand]

I want to buy bacon at the Kosher deli.

 

[Don]

Quite surprised at the final statement. Sure, nobody is proposing new laws stating that adultery is okay, but the entertainment industry is constantly presenting that view, and with clear intent, IMO. And large portions of our society are "voting with their feet" as it were, participating shamelessly in sexual conduct that is clearly declared sin in scripture.

Disagree. When have you seen adultery presented as something normal, rather than something to hide and keep secret? The entertainment industry uses it as a means of creating conflict in stories; not setting up a morality statement indicating we should accept it and do more of it.

Now, on the other hand, it is portrayed often enough that apparently someone in Hollywood believes everyone is doing it....

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Disagree. When have you seen adultery presented as something normal, rather than something to hide and keep secret? The entertainment industry uses it as a means of creating conflict in stories; not setting up a morality statement indicating we should accept it and do more of it.

Now, on the other hand, it is portrayed often enough that apparently someone in Hollywood believes everyone is doing it....

That last sentence is sort of where I was going with my comment. However, we occasionally watch "America's Game" and are struck by the frequency of contestants who mention (typical though fictitious example) a boyfriend of ten years and their three kids, as if that arrangement were the most natural thing in the world.