Bake the Cake, What’s the Big Deal

My Recent Posts

In the days of Roman Empire, there were many religions.  There was the standard Roman pantheon, there was emperor worship, various religions imported, and those of peoples conquered and brought into the Roman fold.  The Jews belonged to the latter group as a matter of fact (Paul was a Roman citizen). 

 

People mixed and matched religion then as people mix and match wardrobes today.  If one god (or group of them) wasn't getting you what you wanted... try another or several at the same time.  Sure, there were the odd-ball religions who didn't do this (the Jews for example), but if you were relatively well behaved and towed the line... that was tolerated.

 

 

Enter the Christians... who fell into that odd-ball category of NOT mixing and matching as everybody else did (inheriting that from the God of the Jews).  At first, they were thought of a Jewish sect and thus enjoyed the same Roman sanctioned status of Judaism.  But that would not last, in large part at the behest of the Jews of that time.

 

Setting aside the fact that Christians were rounded up and killed in various ways.  The manner and degree of persecution ebbed and flowed within the Roman Empire over time.  Roman society sought to dissuade people from practicing their Christian faith and one such means was to prevent Christians from being able to work and make a living for themselves and their families; to prevent them from being able to enjoy the normal benefits of society.

 

Examples include the following.  1) Trade unions would adopt a patron god.  To work you had to belong to that union.  To belong to that union, you had to pay homage to their god.  2) Government officials required citizens to make a token (religious) offering to Caesar; failure to do that ostracized the offending denizen to the point that it limited their ability to work, buy, sell, and function in society.

 

"There is nothing new under the sun".  Man's nature does not change.  Two-thousand years later the pagan and secular world still seeks to limit faith and still uses the same means to do so.

 

Today, one must participate in secular and government sanctioned social norms OR lose your business, lose your right to work, face bankruptcy, face harassment by a horde of government bureaucrats, not to mention leftist activists... OR simply act against one's faith.

 

Of course, the main issue today affecting such persecution is the gay rights agenda.  One must not only accept, but embrace homosexuality (and the offshoots or the expanding acronym) as normal and socially valuable or face the state enforced wrath of the left.  Photographers, bakers, florists, etc... must submit or never work their trade again.

 

 

Like the Romans the secular left asks "What's the big deal.  What is a little incense burned to Caesar, a nod to a pagan idol, participating and giving affirmation to sin?"

 

To Christians then and today.  It's Everything... the difference between "life" and "death".  The secular left will never get that, because…

 

“When Man ceases to worship God, he does not worship nothing but worships everything.” – G.K. Chesterton

 

In secular society, anything and everything can be moral and right and those who disagree will be forced to submit and worship anything and everything… IF they want to work… IF they want to feed their family… IF they want to buy and sell… IF they want to have a place is civilized society…

 

To all you Christians out there… it’s going to get worse, much worse.

Comments

Dave Volek Added Jun 14, 2018 - 11:11am
Nice line of thought Lynn.
 
My understanding that the Roman culture had its values parked in everyone using everyone else to gain some kind of personal advantage.  Success in life was to move forward materialistically. The political elite were playing games to find the edge over each other. Slaves were jockeying over each other for the better positions. If someone was of no use to a second person, there was no motivation to help that person. And when a seemingly act of kindness appeared, there was a big favor expected in the future. Roman life was all a big game to be played to get some kind of personal advantage.
 
The early Christians challenged that culture. They weren't playing that societal game. That is why they were persecuted.
Katharine Otto Added Jun 14, 2018 - 12:07pm
TexasLynn.
To follow up on Dave's thought above, I wonder if Jesus' biggest sin was in not worshipping money.  Throwing the money changers out of the temple, or the parable about the lilies of the field, for instance.  He earned the hatred of both Romans and other Jews.
 
But Christians of today do not practice what Jesus did.  They have become greedy war hawks, as a group, although individual Christians may be different.  
 
I do agree the state has no right to force its will on citizens.  Government over the people assumes god-like authority.  At least religion is voluntary, but taxation is not.
 
TexasLynn Added Jun 14, 2018 - 12:12pm
Dave,
Thanks for the input and perspective on Roman culture.  Though it's hard to know for sure how that society was, I suspect you are right concerning the quid-pro-quo nature of things.
 
You are indeed correct that Christians challenged that culture by not conforming to the degree that the Romans felt this new religion was an enemy of the state and needed to be destroyed.  It was a narrative that the Jewish leadership promoted in hopes of accomplishing the same thing. 
 
Faithful Jews would have refused to worship of other gods as well... but at that time in history managed to conform enough not to suffer the same fate.  That would not always be the case, since the Romans eventually destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.
 
Christ instructed His followers to a Way that was completely new.  We were to be kind and do good works for no other reason than we were His followers.  We were to forgive slights and trespasses against us, because He had forgiven us of so much more.  We were to love not just our family and friends, but even our enemies. He taught us that any of us who would be first in His kingdom (Heaven) we would be last (meaning we would serve) in this one (on earth).
 
But... he also made it abundantly clear... we would NOT worship false idols to the point of death; and THAT was the tool the Romans (and now the secular) use against us.
TexasLynn Added Jun 14, 2018 - 12:16pm
The big leftist message going around today is that "Jesus would have baked that cake".  This comes mostly from those who haven't really studied the teaching of the Messiah.  As one who has... I disagree.
 
Jesus was by trade a carpenter.  I think if he sold his wares and service to the public in general he would have sold to homosexuals (as he would have all sinners).  BUT if he had been asked to build something that would be used in the celebration of sin (gay marriage or idol worship for example) he would have refused.  (This was actually the exact policy of the Christian baker before the SCOTUS recently.  He would not bake cakes for Halloween or even disparaging the LGBT movement either.  I have been very impressed with his stance and commitment.)
 
That said, Christ and God do not hate gays... or any other sinners.  He loves all and hopes each will turn from sin... but He does not pretend Sin is not what it is.
 
When the Pharisees brought an adulteress before Him demanding she be stoned; he saved her by "writing in the dust" and proclaiming "let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone".  Many, even the secular, know of this quote and story.  What many do not remember is His last words to the woman.
 
He doesn't say to her... "Now go and have fun because it's all good."  No... He said, "Go and sin no more."
 
He did not condemn her for her sin... but neither did he celebrate it or give her an excuse to return to it.
 
Jesus hated the sin... but he loved the sinner. :)
 
Side Note: There is conjecture (among Christians) as to what Jesus “wrote in the dust” … in the above story.  It is not documented… but the best guess I’ve ever heard was that he wrote “Where is the man who also committed adultery?” :)
Dave Volek Added Jun 14, 2018 - 12:50pm
Lynn
Yes, that is a fantastic biblical story! The message is so clear.
 
My understanding of those times were that the Jewish nobility was in cahoots with the Romans. They lived a life of pleasure and worked within the Roman culture of manipulating other people to gain advancement. But 90% of the Jews were destitute. Many were so poor, that they signed their life into slavery. There was no hope for a better life than the one they had. And they too were playing the game of advancement, doing things like turning in their neighbor for cheating on oppressive taxes to gain some favor with the authorities.
 
The early Christians said "no" to all that. People were attracted to this early religion because of its altruism--and were willing to suffer the consequences.
 
Regardless, conversion rate was still quite low in the first two centuries. The Jewish zealots outnumbered the Christians in 70 AD. The zealots were a bigger problem for the Romans than the early Christians at that time.
 
I think Mother Theresa said something like: "A state of true happiness is doing something nice for someone else and not expecting anything in return."
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dino Manalis Added Jun 14, 2018 - 12:51pm
 Individuals have the right to make their own personal decisions in a private business.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 14, 2018 - 12:55pm
I agree the baker shouldn’t have to bake the cake.  He didn’t refuse the gay couple service, he simply refused to bake them a wedding cake.  If I remember correctly he also refused to bake Halloween cakes because they are against his religions.  I think that worked in his favor.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 14, 2018 - 12:58pm
Just to reiterate.....I am a liberal.
:)
 
No one should be discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.  The baker applied his Christian beliefs equally to everyone which is why I support the Supreme Court’s decision.  His religious rights need to be respected.
Dave Volek Added Jun 14, 2018 - 1:19pm
Dino
On one hand I agree with you. But there is a slippery slope.
 
Back in the 40s, 50s, & 60s, there used to be a popular travel book for African Americans called the Green Book. It listed all the motels, restaurants, and gas stations that allowed black to use. At the time, there were quite a few travel facilities that refused to serve blacks, preferring not to take their money. In this way, African Americans could plan a journey by car and not have to subject themselves to any overt racism.
 
If a business is allowed to overtly refuse a gay person, where do we draw the line? Should grocery stores be allowed to do the same? Car dealerships? How about government institutions such as schools? 
 
To me, it seems the more prudent thing would be to say something like: "We are booked on that day."
 
But then again, a motel owner could use the same strategy saying to some African Americans: "The motel is full."
 
I don't have an answer here.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 14, 2018 - 1:30pm
@Dave Volek:
”If a business is allowed to overtly refuse a gay person, where do we draw the line? Should grocery stores be allowed to do the same? Car dealerships? How about government institutions such as schools?“
 
That is a problem, Dave.  
 
I think the Supreme Court’s decision is narrow enough so that laws can be applied to prevent discrimination against homosexuals.  
 
But it is important to remember that the baker also has a right to his religious beliefs.  Another important thing to remember is that this does not affect public employees or public services.
Dave Volek Added Jun 14, 2018 - 1:54pm
Jeffrey
 
After thinking about it, the gay couple is really not inconvenienced in the same way African American motorists were in the 1950s. It would not have been that difficult to find another bakery that would have been happy to take their money.
 
This is indeed a complex issue.
Pardero Added Jun 14, 2018 - 2:26pm
Dave Volek,
An interesting question, that Jeffrey Kelly provided a lot of insight on.
 
I recall a movie scene, where a social justice warrior type challenged a restaurant owner about not allowing Mexicans on the premises. A vicious fight ensued. The restaurateur was victorious, and dropped the 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' sign on the loser.
 
It seems to me, no matter how disgusting ignorant racism is, a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone he pleased.
 
The marketplace would likely penalize him, and it might even help potential businesses to get established, that served those that were refused elsewhere.
 
As ugly as discrimination is, I do not believe that a draconian restriction on freedom of association is the right answer. Race relations were actually much better under segregation, though I do not necessarily advocate a return to it. Some libertarians believe that anti-discrimination laws are a grievous curtailment of liberty, and their arguments have some merit.
 
This is a narrow decision, that was justified by religious beliefs, but maybe it can be built upon, so that someday, business owners do not have their freedoms abridged.
 
I was babysitting a certain establishment, years ago. Some drunk Indians showed up. I told them to leave before I summoned the police. Not because they were Indians, but because they were puking all over the place.
opher goodwin Added Jun 14, 2018 - 2:47pm
Tex - I certainly do not agree with your conclusions. I am an atheist, antitheist, and I have a morality as high as any Christian and a lot higher than most. I'm not a hypocrite.  Neither do I want to stop anyone from having their own beliefs or practising their religion. All I want is for them not to indoctrinate children, force others to follow their beliefs or interfere with government or secular practice.
I look back at Rome and wonder what would have happened to the Jewish cult of Christianity if Constantine hadn't politically used it to unify a dysfunctional Rome.
Neil Lock Added Jun 14, 2018 - 2:54pm
TexasLynn: In secular society, anything and everything can be moral and right and those who disagree will be forced to submit and worship anything and everything… IF they want to work… IF they want to feed their family… IF they want to buy and sell… IF they want to have a place is civilized society…
 
Lynn, for me you have just one word wrong in that sentence. If for "secular" you substitute "political," I'll agree with you all the way. For in a political society, laws enacted by politicians are treated as if they had thereby become "moral and right." Even if they are totally destructive.
 
I think you and I are closer in our views than either of us is to the politicians of any party. What is the source of the distinction between right and wrong? You think, god. I think, ius - natural justice, or human nature. They think, lex - laws made by themselves.
 
On this specific issue, here's how I put my view in a recent essay on this very site:  ...all individuals and societies must have the right to discriminate, if they wish, among those with whom they trade. A Christian baker, for example, isn’t required to bake a cake for a gay wedding if he doesn’t want to. Nor are company bosses to be required to hire women, Irish people, Muslims or convicted criminals if they don’t want to.
opher goodwin Added Jun 14, 2018 - 3:10pm
Neil - surely laws should be based on human nature and natural justice?
Pardero Added Jun 14, 2018 - 3:20pm
Neil Lock is talking true freedom, not just the pieces that political correctness allows. Let the market decide, not politicians and virtue-signalers. 
Neil Lock Added Jun 14, 2018 - 3:21pm
Opher: well yes, that's the theory. But politicians don't agree. They make laws to benefit themselves, their cronies and their supporters at the expense of everyone else. Don't they?
Pardero Added Jun 14, 2018 - 3:43pm
We once forcibly transported children, many miles, for the benefit of society?
All that trauma, and what did it get us?
Few totalitarian regimes could exceed that kind of ruthless control. We can't even look back in retrospect and say 'that savage assault on liberty and freedom was worth it.'
 
It isn't a fair world, and no amount of misguided laws can make it so. 
 
Maybe we have turned the corner with the Christian baker, but what amounts to a 'religious exemption' is far from a return to freedom of association. 
Dave Volek Added Jun 14, 2018 - 4:10pm
Pardero
 
There is lots of good logic to what you are saying. Let the free market sort it out.
 
The restaurants, motels, and gas stations in the GREEN BOOK probably made more profit than the other businesses not in the book.
 
With the leverage that most businesses have, a loss of 10% of cash flow can turn a profitable business into one that is barely surviving. That might be the best motivation to keep good customers, regardless of color or sexual orientation.
 
 
 
Pardero Added Jun 14, 2018 - 4:52pm
Dave Volek,
Thank you.
I regret that there ever was a need for a green book, but I have to agree, competition would make many proprietors reconsider mindless unjustified prejudice. 
Also, some places wouldn't have to fear turning away a group of MS13 members, for fear of a lawsuit, or mobs of social justice warriors showing up to protest. If you suspect someone is a gangster, and may etch graffiti into your bathroom mirrors, you should have the right to tell them to get off your property.
 
I have seen winos and derelicts refused service before. Nobody cared because they don't have a vocal identity constituency or semi-professional SJWs to raise hell on their behalf.
opher goodwin Added Jun 14, 2018 - 6:22pm
Neil - I'm not sure I'd go along with that. Some politicians like Trump clearly do but we do still have some caring, uncorrupt politicians, at least in the UK.
Jeff Michka Added Jun 14, 2018 - 8:40pm
Respective of a couple's sexual preferences, why would anyone want to patronize someone that hates them?  I d want to spend my money elsewhere.  Now, of course, TraitoLynn will delete this because basically, he's a coward like Ryan.  Big talk, hypocritical action.
EXPAT Added Jun 14, 2018 - 8:43pm
opher.
I watched the Brexit hearings on TV. Great entertainment. They couldn't even stay on subject. One moron, even blaming Donald Trump for corrupting the process.
Which of those clowns do you consider caring and uncorrupt? A better word would be honest, as Trump is described.
EXPAT Added Jun 14, 2018 - 8:46pm
Early Christians would not accept the Emperor as a living GOD, threatening the stability of Rome. They had to go.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 14, 2018 - 9:44pm
Pardero, I completely disagree with you.
 
I think in this one case because of some very specific actions taken by the owner I think this turned out all right.
 
But the difference is that the baker never refused to serve the men, he simply didn’t want to bake them the wedding cake.  Going from memory he offered to bake them another cake just not a wedding cake.  He did this across the board, including not baking Halloween cakes.
 
But no, businesses do not have the right to simply refuse service for someone because of race, religion, gender, etc.  Yes, they can refuse service but it can’t be because of the reasons I just gave.  That is discrimination and this country has a horrible history with that.  Capitalism didn’t solve it back then, it took government action to do so.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 14, 2018 - 9:45pm
Black people, homosexuals, women, men, Hispanics, Asians, whatever, people have certain rights Pardero.
Pardero Added Jun 14, 2018 - 10:05pm
Jeffrey Kelly,
I didn't mean that I would do such a thing. Part of me disagrees with myself. I don't burn flags, either, but it must be considered free speech, and allowed.
 
I believe in minimal essential government. The government does not belong in the charity business, either, and it does not belong forcing people to do business with those that they don't wish to. 
 
People make a big fuss about the Second Amendment, but freedom of association was so much taken for granted and impervious to government proscription, that it needed no mention. 
 
Our natural right of freedom of association should not be removed by a government because somebody might get hurt feelings.
 
My heart agrees with you, but my head believes in freedom and liberty, and I must stake out a harsh position on principle.
Jeff Michka Added Jun 14, 2018 - 10:07pm
Well, they don't have the same rights or as many rights as "good, clean white people." like Pard claims to be....he is...oogah boogah, part of the TARUMPIST tribe.  And folks bring up MS13 in this context?  That's pathetic.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 14, 2018 - 10:53pm
@Pardero:
”My heart agrees with you, but my head believes in freedom and liberty, and I must stake out a harsh position on principle.”
 
That is part of freedom and liberty.  This keeps minorities from being oppressed.
 
You know that I study history, Pardero.  I know the really bad things that happen when majorities do as they please against minorities.  
 
The people in this country have the right to eat where they want, shop where they want, assemble where they want, etc. without worrying that their skin color or their sex will stop them.
 
Now, this is where your capitalism comes in Pardero.  I may want to eat in certain restaurants but I can’t afford it.  It’s simple, same with living in certain areas or shopping in certain stores.  There are dress codes and things like that.  But if I have the money I can do those things.  That’s where society separates us.
Ryan Messano Added Jun 14, 2018 - 11:09pm
Lol@ a grown adult saying “Oogah boogah”.  Nothing juvenile about that.  
 
First, SCOTUS had no right to declare a man as property in the Dred Scott case.  That had to be rectified with a war.  They also had no right to declare homosexuality legal in the 2003 “Lawrence Vs. Texas”.  It is a crime against nature.  An unjust law is no law at all.  Augustine.  Hopefully, the rogue SCOTUS illicit decisions legalizing Contraception in 1965, porn in 1969, abortion in 1973, the aforementioned homosexuality in 2003, and homosexuality in 2015 wont require a war to overturn them.  Already, 200 million Americans have been wiped out by abortion and contraception since 1965, conservatively!  That is 100 times as many as the less than 2 million Americans killed in all our wars combined.  
 
We have many Americans who don’t understand what law is based on and they stupidly believe the claims of anyone claiming they are a victim.  
 
For the liberals on the page, I recommend you learn Blackstone.  
 
EXPAT Added Jun 14, 2018 - 11:54pm
Jeffry Kelly.
Black people, homosexuals, women, men, Hispanics, Asians, whatever, people have certain rights Pardero.
Do they have rights over the majority, Kelly? Since you included all men and women, your statement has no meaning. Why not just say that, ALL PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS!
opher goodwin Added Jun 15, 2018 - 3:35am
Expat - Corbyn and McDonald to start with.
Leroy Added Jun 15, 2018 - 8:07am
"If I remember correctly he also refused to bake Halloween cakes because they are against his religions.  I think that worked in his favor."
 
"But the difference is that the baker never refused to serve the men, he simply didn’t want to bake them the wedding cake.  Going from memory he offered to bake them another cake just not a wedding cake.  He did this across the board, including not baking Halloween cakes."
 
Jeffrey, first let me say that you are right.  Now let me suggest why the Supreme Court got it wrong.  If the city council (I believe it was) hadn't been overtly anti-religious, the court would have ruled against the bakers.  The court sent the message that it is ok to discriminate against religion; just keep your mouth shut.  
 
What you are suggesting, Jeffrey, is that each owner must pass a litmus test to validate whether or not they are religious enough.  If two separate bakers both refuse to bake a cake because they have religious convictions against promoting homosexualism, one is guilty if he doesn't attend church regularly while the other is innocent because he attends church regularly and has a clear record of not supporting Halloween.  So, do we really want the Supreme Court to sort out individual cases, determining who is religious enough and who is not?  That's what the ruling amounts to.  Not only is the ruling extremely narrow, it sets the stage for the government to control religious owners.  All they have to do is not mention religion when chastising the business, then they can enforce anti-religious legislation.  Contrary to popular belief, this was an anti-religious ruling. 
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 9:44am
Sorry all for the delayed response... it's that exciting life of an IT guy.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
KO >> He (Jesus) earned the hatred of both Romans and other Jews.
 
I think the Romans considered Jesus (and many others) an internal Jewish problem.  I don't think the Romans gave Jesus much thought until the Jews handed Him over to them to be crucified.  Even then, if you read the account of Jesus' trial, Pilot did everything he could to rid himself of dealing with Jesus.  BUT, the Romans were the only ones who could legally carry out the death penalty and the Jewish leaders would settle for nothing less.  Eventually Pilot relented and literally "washed his hands" of the matter... telling the Jews OK... I'll execute him, but his blood/death is on your hands.
 
Other than the account of His passion (torture) and crucifixion; there are few documented encounters between Jesus and Roman citizens, though I'm sure He encounter them on a very regular basis.  Romans society simply wasn't the circle in which Jewish Rabbis circulated on a regular basis.
 
One exception to this was a centurion who asked Jesus to heal a sick servant.  Jesus said he would go with him and do so; but the centurion said that if Jesus simply said his servant would be healed, that would be enough.  Jesus praised the centurion for his faith and sent him on his way.
 
KO >> To follow up on Dave's thought above, I wonder if Jesus' biggest sin was in not worshipping money.
 
MONEY, drives everything for the rich and powerful.  The Romans and Jews were no exception; where money and power went hand-in-hand.
 
Jesus did not directly teach or threaten that class system... but he did attack the status quo and point out the hypocrisy of the higher ups.
 
On you subject of attacking the rich... Jesus did in fact tell his followers that it was easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
 
KO >> Throwing the money changers out of the temple...
 
I just had a discussion with another gentleman concerning Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple.  Remember that all the money changers and merchants that suffered at the hands of Jesus were Jews... not Romans.  Jesus actually had very few documented encounters with Romans though they surrounded him every day.
 
But, that gets right back to what you were talking about... Jesus cost these rich men money, and respect.  He had to go.
 
KO >> or the parable about the lilies of the field, for instance. 
 
The parable of the lilies/flowers in the field was intent on telling us to be content and not anxious about anything.  That God would provide our basic needs AND in the Heaven would bless us beyond our imagination.
 
KO >> But Christians of today do not practice what Jesus did.
 
I hate to lump all of us in that basket. :) 
 
Please understand that what Jesus did, no man can do.  From a Christian perspective, Jesus led the perfect life (sinless) and then died for our sins as only the blameless Son of God could.
 
Jesus does not command that we do what he did (which is impossible) ... just try to do what He told us... and when we fail... keep trying... knowing that because of His sacrifice we are forgiven for every failure.  Thus, the Christian adage, "Not perfect, just forgiven."
 
KO >> They have become greedy war hawks, as a group, although individual Christians may be different. 
 
Christianity by its nature is individual in my opinion.  Each of us is individually responsible for our own path.
 
KO >> I do agree the state has no right to force its will on citizens.  Government over the people assumes god-like authority.  At least religion is voluntary, but taxation is not.
 
For many, the state is their god to which they assign such authority; and that has lead to more tyranny and death than any other thing on earth.
 
Great comments and insight... thank you.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 9:47am
Dave >> Yes, that is a fantastic biblical story! The message is so clear.
 
It is!  Because it applies to each and every one of us.  What Jesus does for and says to that pitiful woman is what He says to us!
 
Dave >> My understanding of those times were that the Jewish nobility was in cahoots with the Romans. They lived a life of pleasure and worked within the Roman culture of manipulating other people to gain advancement.
 
Absolutely.  It was a status-quo kind of thing... kind-of like today. :)
 
Dave >> But 90% of the Jews were destitute. Many were so poor... And they too were playing the game of advancement...
 
I would guess less so; but still there was that factor.
 
Dave >> The early Christians said "no" to all that.
 
Ehhhh... not as much as you might think.  Remember that a lot of the Jews resented Roman rule.  The Pharisees tried to put Jesus in a no-win situation by asking Him if Jews should pay their taxes.  If He said no, the Romans would notice... If He said yes, He would upset some of His followers.  Jesus took his answer to higher level.  Telling then "Rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (taxes) and unto God that which is God's (your devotion).  So... Jesus and his followers didn't say "no" to ALL of that (Jesus said, pay your taxes) ... just certain things, like idol worship which even faithful Jews would have done.
 
And, Jesus and early Christians made a big deal out of assuring the Romans that they were not advocating against Roman rule; that their purpose was higher and spiritual (which was true). 
 
Dave >> People were attracted to this early religion because of its altruism--and were willing to suffer the consequences.
 
That... and God walking the earth and inviting us to have an eternal relationship with Him. :)
 
Dave >> Regardless, conversion rate was still quite low in the first two centuries.
 
Yep... very much so.
 
Dave >> The Jewish zealots outnumbered the Christians in 70 AD. The zealots were a bigger problem for the Romans than the early Christians at that time.
 
Luke in particular goes out of his way to say that the Christian community wanted to be good (Roman) citizens while legitimately practicing their faith.  Luke's message to the Romans... it's not us (Christians) who are the problem but rather the Jewish authorities (zealots).
 
Side Note: Did you know the term "zealot" literally comes from the Greek word meaning "to oppose Roman authority in Judea".
 
Dave >> I think Mother Theresa said something like: "A state of true happiness is doing something nice for someone else and not expecting anything in return."
 
Amen. :)
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 9:48am
JK >> I agree the baker shouldn’t have to bake the cake.  He didn’t refuse the gay couple service, he simply refused to bake them a wedding cake.
 
I'm glad we are in agreement here.  Let me concede that under the law, had the gay couple simply walked in and bought a cake he had for sell to the general public... he would have been legally obliged to sell it to them.  The baker, in fact, stated that he did sell to any and all in that circumstance.
 
JK >> If I remember correctly he also refused to bake Halloween cakes because they are against his religions.
 
You are correct.  AND the once all this hit the fan, the baker was asked to bake several anti-LBGT cakes.  He refused, saying this too would not be living up to his religious principles.
 
JK >> I think that worked in his favor.
 
As it should have.
 
JK >> Just to reiterate.....I am a liberal.
 
I glad you cleared that up.  I know several on WB were wondering.  As I've stated before, I commend you for embracing that fact; and not throwing a hissy-fit when the adjective/noun is thrown your way.
 
Just to reiterate... I am a conservative. :)
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 9:49am
Dave >> Back in the 40s, 50s, & 60s, there used to be a popular travel book for African Americans called the Green Book...
 
Interesting bit of history I was unaware of.
 
Dave >> If a business is allowed to overtly refuse a gay person, where do we draw the line?
 
This is actually a very good question.  For this post, I side with the baker because I can understand his legitimately held religious beliefs.  Christians view homosexuality as a sin; and while we are all sinners, we should not be required to condone, speak in favor of, associate with, or be required to act in support to sin (any sin).
 
The question arises, should there be any law compelling people to
 
JK >> I think the Supreme Court’s decision is narrow enough so that laws can be applied to prevent discrimination against homosexuals.
 
I agree that the decision is very narrow and intentionally so.  I suspect the court would not actually extend that protection as far as they should.
 
Dave >> After thinking about it, the gay couple is really not inconvenienced in the same way African American motorists were in the 1950s. It would not have been that difficult to find another bakery that would have been happy to take their money.
 
OK... but what if they were inconvenienced.  What if this baker was the only one in a few hundred miles (I know... but humor me).  Do the religious beliefs of the baker still stand up?  From my perspective... it always does.
 
FYI... thanks to the horrible state of the main stream media; few know that this gay couple targeted this baker.  They didn't just randomly walk into his shop.  As gay activists, they wanted to bring a suit and searched around until they found someone they thought would deny their request for service.  When they walked into his shop, their intent from the very beginning was litigation.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 9:51am
As a side note on these two gay men actively seeking out someone they suspected would refuse them so they could file a case... they didn't target a barker who subscribed to the "religion of peace" (Islam).  Nope, they went after a Christian instead.  I wonder why?
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 9:57am
 
Pardero >> It seems to me, no matter how disgusting ignorant racism is, a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone he pleased.
 
My libertarian inclination screams "yes"; my moral and rational inclination screams "no".
 
If this had been the law from the beginning, I can't help but think our progress in practically eliminating racism would have been much, much slower.  (And please spare me the diatribes of how racist we still are.)
 
Now that all that progress is behind us; I don't think making such discrimination legal now would amount to a hill of beans.  A racist business would court disaster to have such a policy.
 
Pardero >> As ugly as discrimination is, I do not believe that a draconian restriction on freedom of association is the right answer.
 
Law requiring non-discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or nationality is indeed simply legislating morality.  So is law concerning prostitution, and theft.  The idea that you can't "legislate morality" is a misnomer.  You can't instill it, but half the laws on the books are the legislation of it.
 
So, it gets down to... should sexual orientation and identity (and who knows what else) be added to that list.  I say no.
 
Casting aside legality, and looking at the issue morally, I think it is imperative that all individuals be treated respectfully; but that is an individual responsibility we must all decide upon.
 
Pardero >> Race relations were actually much better under segregation,
 
I think there was a mixed bag on that.  Whites in the U.S. have largely left racism behind (though they are most often accused of racism).  Blacks have embraced it, because the left (and race pimp blacks) have made so much profit from it.
 
Pardero >> Some libertarians believe that anti-discrimination laws are a grievous curtailment of liberty, and their arguments have some merit.
 
And I understand that argument.  I just don't agree with it.  I'm no libertarian.
 
Pardero >> This is a narrow decision, that was justified by religious beliefs, but maybe it can be built upon, so that someday, business owners do not have their freedoms abridged.
 
Maybe, but I'm not hopeful.  I think it was narrow because the SCOTUS intends not to build upon it... but rather go the other way.
 
Pardero >> I was babysitting a certain establishment, years ago. Some drunk Indians showed up. I told them to leave before I summoned the police. Not because they were Indians, but because they were puking all over the place.
 
You racist bastard! :)
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Great comments all, I’ll be replying to more as I have time.
Katharine Otto Added Jun 15, 2018 - 11:28am
TexasLynn,
I claim no label except as an individual.  I believe business owners should have the right to sell or refuse anyone they want, for any reason they want.  It is their loss if they refuse, but a business is private property, just like a home.  Is anyone required to invite anyone into her home?  No.  
 
Businesses, unlike the government, are not in business to "serve" the public.  They are in business to make a living, and they have the right to make a less profitable living if they so choose.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 11:49am
KO >> I claim no label except as an individual.
 
We're all different.  We're all individuals. :P
 
KO >> I believe business owners should have the right to sell or refuse anyone they want, for any reason they want...
 
Many libertarian minded people on WB are with you on this belief.  I respect that stance and can relate... BUT I can't share it.  I think it is reasonable for society to place limits on how far businesses can go in their discrimination (not intended as a negative term here).  In my mind, there is a golden mean here we should seek in an effort to protect the rights of the minority (as in small groups).
 
That mean has currently been skewed too far to the left.  The SCOTUS corrected it a bit, but not enough in my opinion.  I personally don't want it skewed in too far in the opposite direction (where all bets are off) either.
 
Hopefully, we can civilly agree to disagree on this one. :)
 
$%&^! RW!!! Do you see me proposing moderation!?  Hell just cooled a few degrees. :)
EXPAT Added Jun 15, 2018 - 12:48pm
The question the Supremes answered, was:
Can an artist be compelled to participate in activity, that is against his belief?
The correct answer was NO!
 
Bill Kamps Added Jun 15, 2018 - 1:56pm
Since the cake was not a special order, but an "off the rack" cake, I would side with Ginsberg on this.  Because the cake was off the rack, and not a special artistic creation, the gay couple was not asking for a special cake to be made for the couple.   Had the couple asked for a special artistic cake be made, then I would side with the owner of the bakery, and that the artist did not have to do special work for this couple. 
 
I will grant you it is a fine line. The question is, was baker acting more as an artist in making this cake, or more like a grocer in producing a standard cake?  I dont think any of us would say that a grocer has the right to not sell a gay couple groceries, or even a cake that they may sell. 
 
As with all court cases, the details of the decision matters in how the case was argued before the Supremes.  Since none of us were there, we dont know the specifics of what was argued, but we get the jist from the opinions of the justices. 
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 2:12pm
BK >> Since the cake was not a special order, but an "off the rack" cake, I would side with Ginsberg on this.
 
"A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple..." -- USA Today (thus an ultra-left source).
 
Where did you hear; it was "off the rack".
 
BK >>  Had the couple asked for a special artistic cake be made, then I would side with the owner of the bakery, and that the artist did not have to do special work for this couple. 
 
So now that you are properly informed... you'll concede the court and the baker were right?
 
BK >> The question is, was baker acting more as an artist in making this cake, or more like a grocer in producing a standard cake?
 
This is indeed what the baker in question did.  He served many gay customers in the past with his "off the rack" product.  He just refused to do a "custom" order.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 2:15pm
EXPAT >> The question the Supremes answered, was: Can an artist be compelled to participate in activity, that is against his belief? The correct answer was NO!
 
That is correct and I don't want to diminish the victory... but where the court is heading with this (a very narrow ruling) is that we Christians may not refuse such service strictly on moral grounds. THAT in my opinion would be wrong.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 2:18pm
Opher >> I certainly do not agree with your conclusions.
 
That surprises me Opher. :)
 
Opher >> I am an atheist, antitheist
 
Well established on WB.
 
Opher >> and I have a morality as high as any Christian and a lot higher than most.
 
Meh... 
 
Opher >> I'm not a hypocrite. 
 
Meh...
 
Opher >> Neither do I want to stop anyone from having their own beliefs or practising their religion.
 
Meh... I wonder if your "want" would prevail if ability were suddenly in your grasp... I just shuddered.
 
Opher >> All I want is for them not to indoctrinate children
 
Does that include our own children, or do you think it best that you secularist (schools) should take over that responsibility?
 
Our Christian beliefs teach us to teach our children...
 
Proverbs 22:6 (KJV) Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
 
Opher >> ... force others to follow their beliefs
 
Give one example where Christians have done this by “force”. (within the last century).
 
We, sir, are not Islam.
 
Opher >> ... or interfere with government or secular practice.
 
You'll have to be more specific.  Does exercising our religion and defending ourselves against tyrannical government practice fit your definition of "interference"?
 
Opher >> I look back at Rome and wonder what would have happened to the Jewish cult of Christianity if Constantine hadn't politically used it to unify a dysfunctional Rome.
 
Answer: God would have found other means, other men, other circumstances... to make His will known. :)
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 2:22pm
Neil >> Lynn, for me you have just one word wrong in that sentence. If for "secular" you substitute "political," I'll agree with you all the way.
 
It's hard for me to make that substitution.  Maybe "secular political" since those who push such draconian abuse of power are practically always both.  But do let me concede that there are many secular people who do not subscribe to such abuse.  Maybe that’s enough.
 
Neil >> For in a political society, laws enacted by politicians are treated as if they had thereby become "moral and right." Even if they are totally destructive.
 
Agreed... but the two are not equivalent in any way.
 
We Christians are taught that as long as a law does not violate the will of God, we are to submit; which doesn't mean we are restricted from trying to legally change it.
 
Neil >> I think you and I are closer in our views than either of us is to the politicians of any party.
 
Agreed. :) Thought that is a very low threshold. :)
 
Neil >> What is the source of the distinction between right and wrong? You think, god. I think, ius - natural justice, or human nature. They think, lex - laws made by themselves.
 
My only correction to the above would be "God"... not god. :)
 
Neil >> On this specific issue, here's how I put my view in a recent essay on this very site:  ...all individuals and societies must have the right to discriminate, if they wish, among those with whom they trade. A Christian baker, for example, isn’t required to bake a cake for a gay wedding if he doesn’t want to. Nor are company bosses to be required to hire women, Irish people, Muslims or convicted criminals if they don’t want to.
 
I definitely see your point, but I'm not all the way with you.  We have a Republic (as opposed to a Democracy) for the purpose of protecting the rights of the minority (as in group of people).  I personally think that list should be very short (race, religion, national origin, age, sex).
 
I believe I stated above that early protections for the above went a long way in curbing and eliminating a lot of ills we had in this society a half century ago.
 
Pardero >> Neil Lock is talking true freedom, not just the pieces that political correctness allows. Let the market decide, not politicians and virtue-signalers.
 
I've got these little libertarian tendencies that Neil (and others) bring out.  Like I said above, there is value in some anti-discrimination law; but as with all things the left goes nuts and swings that pendulum as far as they can.  It's time for it to swing back to a point of sanity.
 
"True freedom" is like "true love" (see "The Princess Bride) a rare and fabled thing.
 
If we really took "true freedom" to its natural conclusion... you get anarchy.  I'm definitely not there.  No shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc...
 
Neil >> But politicians don't agree. They make laws to benefit themselves, their cronies and their supporters at the expense of everyone else. Don't they?
 
Yes, to the n'th degree. 
 
Pardero >> We once forcibly transported children, many miles, for the benefit of society?
 
Are you talking about school segregation?  Wooof... that was a mess.
 
Pardero >> It isn't a fair world, and no amount of misguided laws can make it so.
 
I think this touches on a key difference between the left and right.  The left seeks to make things fair in outcome; the right seeks to make things fair in opportunity.
 
Pardero >> Maybe we have turned the corner with the Christian baker, but what amounts to a 'religious exemption' is far from a return to freedom of association.
 
The ruling was too narrow to even declare that victory.  As for the return to freedom of association... that is a distant, distant, memory.  Just look at the millions forcibly bilked out of people to support labor unions.
Bill Kamps Added Jun 15, 2018 - 2:32pm
Well given the expert legal credentials of USA today, what choice do we have? 
 
In all honesty, I dont know where I heard the cake was a standard cake, this thing has been flying around for some time now. 
 
My personal view is that is was absurd for the couple to take this to court, they simply  should have taken their business elsewhere.
 
As I said in my last paragraph, an awful lot depends on the details of the case.   I have been on juries where because of how the case was argued the result differed from what would have appeared to be common sense without having heard the arguments.
 
I dont know the specifics of what made this cake custom, but given what little we know, we will have to assume the court got it right. 
 
For example,  if the cake was custom, because they asked for a special kind of chocolate icing, or it was simply larger than usual,  then probably the baker should have baked the cake.  If it was custom, because it showed two guys kissing and celebrated their gay marriage, then I can understand him not baking the cake.  
 
That of course is just my  opinion, not a legal one. 
 
 
 
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 3:57pm
BK >> Well given the expert legal credentials of USA today, what choice do we have?
 
I was just pointing out that even liberal sources acknowledge the fact this the gay couple was seeking a custom order.  I’m sure I could have also quoted the NYT or Hiffington Post in the same manner.
 
BK >> In all honesty, I dont know where I heard the cake was a standard cake, this thing has been flying around for some time now.
 
Interesting...  I asked because I have seen that assertion absolutely nowhere in the many articles I've read.  EVERY source I have read stated it was custom.  So, I was legitimately curious as to who (what source) said it wasn’t.
 
BK >> My personal view is that is was absurd for the couple to take this to court, they simply  should have taken their business elsewhere.
 
I know you can't read every comment (and don't expect you to); but I kind-of addressed that above.
 
It is well known, that these two men actively sought out a business they suspected would not honor their request.  Their intent from day one; their intent the moment they stepped foot in that bakery was to file suit... to strike a blow for gay rights.  Had the baker relented and agreed to bake the cake... they would have taken their business elsewhere until they found one who wouldn't.
 
I only wish they had been stupid enough to try this with a Muslim establishment.  Two gays in hiding with fatwas on their head… now that’s entertainment.
 
BK >> I dont know the specifics of what made this cake custom, but given what little we know, we will have to assume the court got it right.
 
LMAO... that assumption is something I would never give. :)  ... given their track record.
 
BK >> For example,  if the cake was custom, because they asked for a special kind of chocolate icing, or it was simply larger than usual,  then probably the baker should have baked the cake.
 
I completely disagree.  Any action would have been in support of the sinful act of gay marriage.  Any Christian who made a determination not to participate in any way would be right to do so.
 
BK >> If it was custom, because it showed two guys kissing and celebrated their gay marriage, then I can understand him not baking the cake.
 
You are right that we don't know all the particulars... but sometimes the particulars aren't that important.
 
I don't have to live in Rome and do as the Romans do to have an accurate and valid opinions that they are not people I want to deal with.
 
BK >> That of course is just my  opinion, not a legal one.
 
As is about 99.999% of everything written on this forum. :)
Jas the Mace Added Jun 15, 2018 - 5:57pm
How about we go back to posted signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason"
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 7:07pm
@Ryan Messano:
”Lol@ a grown adult saying “Oogah boogah”.  Nothing juvenile about that.”
 
Did you just have a stroke?
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 7:14pm
@EXPAT:
Do they have rights over the majority, Kelly? Since you included all men and women, your statement has no meaning. Why not just say that, ALL PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS!”
 
A couple of things:
One, I still can’t figure out why you care. You left the states a long time ago so you could get your freak on without getting arrested.
Two, all people do have rights.  It’s just taken us almost 250 years to get to this point.  This country has a long history of oppressing minorities.  When need to make sure that this no longer happens.  Whatever your personal views on the subject we are talking (for the most part) about citizens who have rights.  They shouldn’t be denied them because of personal prejudice.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 7:21pm
@Leroy:
”What you are suggesting, Jeffrey, is that each owner must pass a litmus test to validate whether or not they are religious enough.  If two separate bakers both refuse to bake a cake because they have religious convictions against promoting homosexualism, one is guilty if he doesn't attend church regularly while the other is innocent because he attends church regularly and has a clear record of not supporting Halloween.  So, do we really want the Supreme Court to sort out individual cases, determining who is religious enough and who is not?  That's what the ruling amounts to.  Not only is the ruling extremely narrow, it sets the stage for the government to control religious owners.  All they have to do is not mention religion when chastising the business, then they can enforce anti-religious legislation.  Contrary to popular belief, this was an anti-religious ruling.“
 
Leroy, I’m not sure that any of this works out for the best.  
 
What I would say is that the SC is correct, the baker applied his religious beliefs across the board, not just against the gay men.  He never refused the men service, he simply didn’t want to bake them a cake that clashed with his religious beliefs.  I respect that.  He has the right to believe as he wants.  
 
I also think that in this instance the narrowness of the ruling leaves this open so that it is not a blanket precedent.  
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 7:27pm
Lynn, I find it truly frightening that you and I are agreeing so much.
:)
Tamara Wilhite Added Jun 15, 2018 - 7:57pm
Part of it is the unfair double standard of these so-called Civil Rights Commissions.
 
The same civil rights division rejected the case of a Christian customer who was denied service at another bakery.
That customer had requested a cake with a biblical message opposing same-sex marriage.
Double Standard Exposed in Colorado Cakes Case
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/April/Double-Standard-Exposed-in-Colorado-Cakes-Case
 
Or various officials from the federal Obama admins to state level authorities saying don't you dare make the Muslim drive the beer truck, the Muslim taxi driver doesn't have to take the customer with wine, install foot baths for the taxi drivers, but any Christian symbols or accommodations are unacceptable. Demands that Muslims get prayer rooms on campus and openly proselytize but schools can penalize a student for expressing a Christian viewpoint and ban groups as "hate speech".
Tamara Wilhite Added Jun 15, 2018 - 7:58pm
If the Muslim can decline the service per their faith, then fairness requires Christians can refuse, too.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 8:31pm
Tamara, tell the whole story, please.
 
”While Jack argued that he had been discriminated against for being Christian, the department’s decision said evidence showed Silva refused to bake the cakes because the customer’s requests included “derogatory language and imagery,” according to 7 News Denver:

The baker said “in the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays,” according to the decision.
“The evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed.”

The decision, according to 7 News Denver, noted that Silva is Catholic and employs multiple Christian and non-Christian employees.”
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 8:32pm
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 8:34pm
Essentially (and what Tamara didn’t say) is that the man in question requested the baker put anti-gay derogatory messages on his cakes.  She offered to bake the Bible shaped cakes but not put the derogatory messages on them.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 8:38pm
More:
”For one thing, Silva says that she offered to accommodate Jack’s request in a way that would not require her to write the words in question in her own hand. According to KDVR, Silva proposed that her bakery make the cake with a blank Bible page and provide Jack with the frosting and piping materials needed to write his anti-gay cake message on the dessert himself.
University of Denver law professor Nancy Leong told KUSA that the accommodation offer could actually matter here. “This is not a situation where a business owner denied service to somebody,” Leong said. “She offered to accommodate him to the extent that she could. In fact, requiring her to write that message would infringe on her own free speech rights.”
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 8:39pm
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:05pm
Pardero >> I regret that there ever was a need for a green book, but I have to agree, competition would make many proprietors reconsider mindless unjustified prejudice.
 
I don't necessarily agree. Hatred can run deep enough to trump common sense or even profit motive.  Not to mention that some fascist groups and ideologies would band together to force discrimination against those they hate.
 
As such a target group... and knowing how far this could go (the entire point of the article) the protection should be there.
 
Case in point... "Twitter CEO slammed for Chick-fil-A tweet during Pride Month"
 
THIS is where, we're going as a society.  THIS is our future.
 
Pardero >> Also, some places wouldn't have to fear turning away a group of MS13 members, for fear of a lawsuit...
 
A related issue that also needs to be addressed.  Our society is too litigious. 
 
Pardero >> I have seen winos and derelicts refused service before. Nobody cared because they don't have a vocal identity constituency or semi-professional SJWs to raise hell on their behalf.
 
As have I...
 
Not that we step up to the plate every time... but sometimes we Christians get it right.
 
Chick-fil-A manager gives homeless man a meal in exchange for a prayer
 
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:07pm
EXPAT >> Early Christians would not accept the Emperor as a living GOD, threatening the stability of Rome. They had to go.
 
I don't know how threatened the Romans felt by us (Christians)... but they certainly decided that we had to be brought to heel OR had to go.
 
With your example in mind... I'm sure devout Jews would also have refused to accept the Emperor as a living GOD... yet were no targeted as the Christians where.  Why, would be an appropriate question.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:09pm
Heaven Help Me!... I'm about to agree with Jeffrey Kelly!   JK… go check your blood pressure! Did you have a stroke or something! :)
 
JK >> But no, businesses do not have the right to simply refuse service for someone because of race, religion, gender, etc...
 
That is the law.  Whether or not the law should be changed is another debate.  BUT... I actually think those legal protections in the past have served us (society) well.  I'm just against expanding them further... to LGBT, for example.
 
JK >> Yes, they can refuse service but it can’t be because of the reasons I just gave.
 
Thus... you should be able to refuse service to MS13 because they are murderous thugs ... not because they are Hispanic.
 
JK >> That is discrimination and this country has a horrible history with that.
 
Yes, we have.  AND look how far we have come! 
 
JK >> Capitalism didn’t solve it back then, it took government action to do so.
 
Again, I agree.  I think capitalism could do it today, but only because all that progress is already behind us.
 
JK >> But the difference is that the baker never refused to serve the men, he simply didn’t want to bake them the wedding cake.
 
Exactly.  This case centered on the custom, artistic service.
 
JK >> I think in this one case because of some very specific actions taken by the owner I think this turned out all right.
 
Jeffery is rights in that the owner did not discriminate in the general products he had to sell.
 
Now... that said.  I think men should be able to discriminate on strictly moral grounds.
 
An example that comes to mind is that I not rent a house to a gay or transvestite simply because I don't want to expose my children or neighbors to such people.  The same principle could apply to not renting said house to an unmarried couple, a promiscuous heterosexual man/woman, or an overt racist (KKK member or such like).
 
JK >> Black people, homosexuals, women, men, Hispanics, Asians, whatever, people have certain rights Pardero.
 
The do... assuming black, Hispanic, and Asia represents on the basis of race; and men/women on the basis of sex. 
 
Even "homosexuals" have rights; the same as any other citizen... BUT secular society seeks to extend to them special rights (based on their lifestyles chosen) they should not have (marriage, force others to act against their faith).
 
Hopefully "whatever" includes Christians (a subset of "on the basis of religion).  And all the above rights of all the above groups does not extend to force a man/woman to act against their faith.  NONE of the above people should be able to force a Jewish or Muslim caterer... to prepare and serve bacon wrapped shrimp (non-kosher) for their even/party... or any other faith (business or personal) to act against their beliefs.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:11pm
Pardero >> I didn't mean that I would do such a thing. Part of me disagrees with myself. I don't burn flags, either, but it must be considered free speech, and allowed.
 
Wow... me siding with JK over Pardero! If I were Catholic... I'd have a lot of atonement to do.
 
I definitely see free speech and freedom of association issues here.  But those rights are not absolute, as in "no yelling fire in a crowded theater"... Reasonable restrictions are thus applicable... and I think public/business discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin are one of those reasonable restrictions.
 
Now... as for individuals... that doesn't apply (in my opinion).
 
Pardero >> I believe in minimal essential government.
 
Amen.
 
Pardero >> The government does not belong in the charity business
 
Amen.
 
Pardero >> ... and it does not belong forcing people to do business with those that they don't wish to.
 
$%^&!  Almost there (3 for 3). :)
 
It is in the business in protecting the rights of all… even those who would lose the vote.
 
JK >> That is part of freedom and liberty.  This keeps minorities from being oppressed.
 
AND... that is right on the money as to why some such restrictions are applicable.
 
NOW... with the understanding; that religious belief is just as high on that list as any other category.
 
A Muslim businessman should be allowed to deny service for example to women who do not cover themselves... for example.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:12pm
Ryan >> a grown adult saying “Oogah boogah”.
 
Please don't feed or acknowledge the trolls. :)
 
Ryan >> An unjust law is no law at all.
 
Well... I agree with you in spirit.  It is a law that shouldn't be a law and one that we should fight and make every effort to overturn...
 
Ryan >>  Already, 200 million Americans have been wiped out by abortion and contraception since 1965, conservatively!
 
And here Ryan we are only in partial agreement... I'm not against private contraception while I am against abortion.  Feel free to educate me on the former.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:13pm
Leroy >> Jeffrey, first let me say that you are right.  Now let me suggest why the Supreme Court got it wrong.  If the city council (I believe it was) hadn't been overtly anti-religious, the court would have ruled against the bakers.  The court sent the message that it is ok to discriminate against religion; just keep your mouth shut.
 
Leroy is right on the money.  The SCOTUS paid a lot of attention in this ruling that the persecutors went overboard... suggesting (and I agree) if they had just minded their Ps and Qs this would have going the other way.
 
Leroy >> Not only is the ruling extremely narrow, it sets the stage for the government to control religious owners.
 
We Christians aren't out of the woods yet on this issue by a long shot.  In fact... in the long run this is likely to go against us at which point we'll really get a good dose of what the Romans did.  Either we must act in such a way that we and are family's will suffer and be destitute... or conform to the world and deny our faith.
 
That is our future we have to look forward to.
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:34pm
JtM >> How about we go back to posted signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason"
 
It's a nice idea... but holds little legal authority (if I'm not mistaken).
 
JK >> Did you just have a stroke?
 
I suspect the original author of "Oogah boogah" had a stroke years ago... based on lack of paragraphs and irrational ravings.
 
JK >> This country has a long history of oppressing minorities.  When need to make sure that this no longer happens.  Whatever your personal views on the subject we are talking (for the most part) about citizens who have rights.  They shouldn’t be denied them because of personal prejudice.
 
JK... quit making sense... you're scaring me.
 
JK >> I also think that in this instance the narrowness of the ruling leaves this open so that it is not a blanket precedent. 
 
I little disagreement here... thank goodness.
 
You are right that the SC intentionally made this judgment very narrow so as to leave open restrictions in the future.  I think Leroy has observed this as well.
 
I would have felt a lot better had this been a broader judgment; allowing for Christians to deny participation for nothing other than religious belief.  Until we have THAT ruling the likelihood of further persecution continues.  Especially when you look at the actions of these dirt-bags on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
 
JK >> Lynn, I find it truly frightening that you and I are agreeing so much. :)
 
You and me both, brother.  You and me both! :)
TexasLynn Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:35pm
Tamara W >> Part of it is the unfair double standard of these so-called Civil Rights Commissions.
 
Thank you, Tamara, for bringing this up.  I was aware of it, but had not included it in my original post.
 
What this proves is THIS is all about secular political power persecuting Christians.  THAT is what ALL of this has been about from the beginning.  It was the intent of the two gay men from the beginning... it was the intent of all the politicians and bureaucrats from the beginning.
 
We're lucky this time that the SCOTS helped justice prevail... but they made it very clear they can't necessarily be counted on next time.  And given the hatred and determination of the left on this issue; we (Christians) are still on the defensive.
 
Tamara W >> The same civil rights division rejected the case of a Christian customer who was denied service at another bakery.
 
These people are real dirt-bag, leftist, hypocrites... but what do you want to bet there were no ramifications for their actions.  Personally, I think they are liable for any and all losses the baker incurred.
 
Tamare W >> If the Muslim can decline the service per their faith, then fairness requires Christians can refuse, too.
 
And I think they should be able to.
 
The double standard the left applies against Christians exposes their true motives and hypocrisy.
 
Good exchange between you and Jeffrey K... thanks for picking up the slack in my absence.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:48pm
@TexasLynn:
”Heaven Help Me!... I'm about to agree with Jeffrey Kelly!   JK… go check your blood pressure! Did you have a stroke or something! :)”
 
I’m a smart cookie, Lynn.  No matter what Ryan babbles.
:)
 
“JK >> But no, businesses do not have the right to simply refuse service for someone because of race, religion, gender, etc...
 
That is the law.  Whether or not the law should be changed is another debate.  BUT... I actually think those legal protections in the past have served us (society) well.  I'm just against expanding them further... to LGBT, for example.”
 
Depends.  Being gay is not a handicap of some type...but then again neither is being black or a woman.  I have no issues with extending protections to the LGBT but not to an excess.  Being gay is not the same as a racial or gender bias.
 

 
“JK >> Yes, they can refuse service but it can’t be because of the reasons I just gave.
 
Thus... you should be able to refuse service to MS13 because they are murderous thugs ... not because they are Hispanic.”
 
How do you know a group of Hispanic men are members of MS-13?  Would you require them to fill out a form before they could eat?  Ask them to strip down to check them for weapons or tattoos?  Would you require all patrons to do this or only the Hispanics?  Do you see the issue with this yet?  What about Italians?  Should we require them to fill out a form asking them if they are members of organized crime, pat them down, etc.?
 

 
“JK >> Capitalism didn’t solve it back then, it took government action to do so.
 
Again, I agree.  I think capitalism could do it today, but only because all that progress is already behind us.”
 
Without laws we would slip into old bad habits.  It’s human nature.
 
 
“JK >> I think in this one case because of some very specific actions taken by the owner I think this turned out all right.
 
Jeffery is rights in that the owner did not discriminate in the general products he had to sell.
 
Now... that said.  I think men should be able to discriminate on strictly moral grounds.”
 
That’s a very slippery slope, Lynn.  
 
“An example that comes to mind is that I not rent a house to a gay or transvestite simply because I don't want to expose my children or neighbors to such people.”
 
How would you know someone is gay or transvestite?  
 
“The same principle could apply to not renting said house to an unmarried couple,”
 
Why is this an issue?
 
“a promiscuous heterosexual man/woman,”
 
How would you know this?
 
“or an overt racist (KKK member or such like).”
 
Hhhhhhhmmmmm, oddly enough I disagree with you.  It comes down to what do we consider overt racism.  This probably deserves its own article.
 
“JK >> Black people, homosexuals, women, men, Hispanics, Asians, whatever, people have certain rights Pardero.
 
The do... assuming black, Hispanic, and Asia represents on the basis of race; and men/women on the basis of sex. 
 
Even "homosexuals" have rights; the same as any other citizen... BUT secular society seeks to extend to them special rights (based on their lifestyles chosen) they should not have (marriage, force others to act against their faith).”
 
I don’t object to gay marriage.  I know you do and I understand why.  I look at it in terms of practicality and on a legal basis.  I consider a compromise to be a form of legal union that allows the spouse rights of inheritance and certain other rights that traditional marriages have.  There are churches in my area that conduct gay marriages and others that do not.  I’m not hung up on biblical interpretations of what marriages are but I understand the religious objections to such things.  This is why I favor the court’s specific ruling in this matter.  
 
“Hopefully "whatever" includes Christians (a subset of "on the basis of religion).  And all the above rights of all the above groups does not extend to force a man/woman to act against their faith.  NONE of the above people should be able to force a Jewish or Muslim caterer... to prepare and serve bacon wrapped shrimp (non-kosher) for their even/party... or any other faith (business or personal) to act against their beliefs.”
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 10:49pm
Got cut off but what I said was that each case needs to be examined on an individual basis.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 15, 2018 - 11:06pm
@TexasLynn:
Ryan >>  Already, 200 million Americans have been wiped out by abortion and contraception since 1965, conservatively!


 
And here Ryan we are only in partial agreement... I'm not against private contraception while I am against abortion.  Feel free to educate me on the former.”
 
Sort of feel weird admitting this.....
I am personally against abortion in a moral sense.  My feelings on this matter have only deepened since the birth of my two boys.  My wife once asked me what would I want if she became pregnant when we hadn’t planned it.  I told her we would have a third child.  She told me that she felt relieved when I said that.  I couldn’t bear the thought of having my wife go through something like that and I couldn’t bear losing a child in that manner.
 
My own belief is that effective contraception is better than abortion any day and education is the key.  If all else fails and an oops happens then adoption is better than putting a woman through an abortion.
 
All that being said it is not my body we are discussing and I can’t get pregnant.  I respect that women have a choice in this matter because in the end they deal with the consequences.


 
Ward Tipton Added Jun 16, 2018 - 6:58am
Am I the only one here old enough to remember "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" was more than just a sign hanging in a bar?
 
John Minehan Added Jun 16, 2018 - 10:50am
Let me see:
 
"And a stranger shalt thou not oppress; for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Exodus 23:9.

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."  Mathew 25:40.

"What's the Big Deal?" indeed. 
 
John Minehan Added Jun 16, 2018 - 11:00am
"I recall a movie scene, where a social justice warrior type challenged a restaurant owner about not allowing Mexicans on the premises. A vicious fight ensued. The restaurateur was victorious, and dropped the 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' sign on the loser."
 
The movie was Giant (1956).
Neil Lock Added Jun 16, 2018 - 12:38pm
Lynn: Thanks for your considered replies. And yes... persecuting Christians for being Christians is wrong. As is persecuting Jews, Muslims, atheists or agnostics, or people of one race or another. At worst, it is just persecution for the sake of persecution. We can all think of examples.
 
My own take on this is that, firstly, every individual (and company) must have the freedom to discriminate as they see fit. However, any such discrimination must be made public in advance. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason," in my view, isn't good enough. "We will not serve drunkards, gays, Hispanics or people less than 6 feet tall" would be fine, as long as it is adhered to in good faith. (And the height-meter at the door is accurate! :-) Of course, those who discriminate on grounds others find unreasonable, are vulnerable to tit for tat. Racists, for example, would be shunned by people like me, who don't care a damn about what colo(u)r someone's skin is, only how he or she behaves.
 
There's also an important distinction between serving people a product which is already made, and entering into a contract for a customized supply. It's much easier to justify discrimination in the latter than the former, and I guess that's what the court ruled on.
Pardero Added Jun 16, 2018 - 1:52pm
John Minehan,
Bravo!
TexasLynn Added Jun 16, 2018 - 7:16pm
JK >> Being gay is not the same as a racial or gender bias.
 
Exactly my position... and one the black community should push back on.  Some do.
 
JK >> How do you know a group of Hispanic men are members of MS-13? 
 
I had in mind local businesses who know who is a gang banger and who is not.  Granted, outside that area; you wouldn't know.
 
Too bad there isn't a MS-13 equivalent to gaydar. :)
 
How do you know a white man is a white man... I read history accounts (right after slavery ended) of black men who could pass for white.  They left the community they originally lived in and where white from then on.
 
As I stated before, in researching one line of my genealogy... the further back we went, the darker we go. :)  Of course, I'm a young, petite, prett, black woman... so that's hard to do. :P
 
JK >> Without laws we would slip into old bad habits.  It’s human nature.
 
A perfectly logical conclusion given human nature... let's just not find out.
 
JK >> How would you know someone is gay or transvestite? 
 
Gaydar works on transvestites as well.
 
The point being, that once I do know (or even suspect) it's my prerogative to show them the door.
 
JK >> Why is this an issue (unmarried couple or promiscuous or racist)?
 
Because it is against my religion... The same as above applies as far as knowing.  I may already know the person and their proclivity.  Absent that, I may learn of it later.
 
JK >> I don’t object to gay marriage.  I know you do and I understand why.
 
I wish we had gone the route of "civil unions" but that genie is already out of the bottle.
 
Not that we Christians and heterosexuals have done such a good job of holding up the idea of marriage ourselves.
 
JK >> Got cut off but what I said was that each case needs to be examined on an individual basis.
 
I not there except in the since that I want a broad precedent to be set by the SCOTUS to guide the lower courts and the bureaucrats.
 
We can't send every case to the SCOTUS.  The bureaucrats have already proven they are incompetent to the task (as in this case)... and the lower courts aren't much better.
TexasLynn Added Jun 16, 2018 - 7:17pm
John M, loved the Bible quotes.
 
I might add...
 
Mark 12:29-31 (NIV) “The most important one (commandment),” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
 
Treat your fellow man as you would have them treat you.
 
With that in mind, I do not expect any man (whatever his faith) to deny that faith in service to me.
TexasLynn Added Jun 16, 2018 - 7:17pm
Neil L >> Thanks for your considered replies.
 
I try. :)
 
Neil L >> And yes... persecuting Christians for being Christians is wrong. As is persecuting Jews, Muslims, atheists or agnostics, or people of one race or another.
 
Agreed.
 
Neil L >> We can all think of examples.
 
And Agreed.
 
Neil L >> My own take on this is that, firstly, every individual (and company) must have the freedom to discriminate as they see fit. However, any such discrimination must be made public in advance…
 
I get where you're coming from... and given the caveat (they must publicly announce their policy) I think this system would work for the most part... it would actually reduce discrimination.
 
I can't say that I support it because I still have concerns of the majority oppressing the minority (see scenario below). BUT it would be better than a lot of other solutions I've heard.
 
I will ask... how would you handle a large group pressuring companies (et al.) to discriminate against another group or face their wrath (a boycott at best)?  I can easily see such scenarios getting out of hand.  Again, the purpose of the republic was to check the tyranny of the majority.
 
Neil L >> Of course, those who discriminate on grounds others find unreasonable, are vulnerable to tit for tat. Racists, for example, would be shunned by people like me, who don't care a damn about what colo(u)r someone's skin is, only how he or she behaves.
 
That is the key to the system working at all.  My libertarian side is all for it... but my social conservative side dominants on such issues.
 
Let me share this.  When I was in Houston, the leftist city government put forth an ordinance that forbid smoking indoors for all businesses (that included restaurants and bars).  I argued against the law, stating that it was an issue of property rights.  I further argued that if a business wanted to require you to smoke to patronize their business... that was their right. 
 
Philosophically, we're not too far off... I just need other issues (protecting minority constitutional rights) addressed first.
 
So... again... I see where you're coming from and appreciate your contribution to the discussion.
 
Neail L >> There's also an important distinction between serving people a product which is already made, and entering into a contract for a customized supply. It's much easier to justify discrimination in the latter than the former, and I guess that's what the court ruled on.
 
Absolutely.  And again, the baker in question was happy to serve these two gay men (and others) product already made.  Just not to practice his "art" on behalf of their sin.
Jeff Michka Added Jun 16, 2018 - 7:58pm
You are still a treasonist hypocrite, TraitorLynn, or you'd detract you article and links to that article where you want to break up the country you supposedly love.  So which is it, hypocrite?  And "oogah boogah"  is so you'll see the tribal message and think it's about something you want to co-opt.  Are you Texass tribe, or just another member of "those good white people's tribe?"  I think Messano has met his match in a four star clown like you, TRAITORlynn
Ward Tipton Added Jun 16, 2018 - 10:27pm
"My own take on this is that, firstly, every individual (and company) must have the freedom to discriminate as they see fit. However, any such discrimination must be made public in advance. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason," in my view, isn't good enough."
 
You would end up with great big lists, far too long for the average person to read and comprehend. The simple statement covers any and all objections and worked for a very long time. 
 
As for government involvement in marriage ... a "Civil" wedding certificate that brings in the government as a third party? 
 
On the one hand, a marriage is a religious undertaking wherein two people make their vows to each other in front of (their) God or god. What right does the government have to infringe on religious tradition?
 
On the other hand, marriage is a private contract between two individuals. What right does the government have to regulate a private transaction between two private citizens? 
EXPAT Added Jun 17, 2018 - 1:05pm
When you give someone or thing(Climate) a RIGHT, you diminish the right of someone else to make their own decision.
 
When you try to legislate Social Justice, you end up giving preference to  those who cannot function in society, without help. 
 
You may think this is good, but sooner or later, those with the ability to lead; those who are strongest in society, end up being suppressed, and overall society is less.
 
I prefer alternatives to legislation. If Gay's want cakes, open a bakery for Gays. If women want equal pay, they should start a business, or refuse to work for less, and if Blacks do not get good service, they need to open a Black owned shop.
 
I know this is more difficult than a police state, but it is permanent, as opposed to feel good legislation. Has discrimination gone away because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Are women now equal to men, because of Title 7 and 9?
 
Freedom is not fair, or equal, but I find it preferable to millions of laws, and overburdened courts that take away property, wealth and even life, because someone else thinks it is justice!
 
TexasLynn Added Jun 19, 2018 - 10:26am
This is a very good article on the cake artist, Jack Phillips. The left (and state of Colorado) has destroyed his life and should be held financially responsible. It's the only thing that will stop these little fascist from plying their trade.
 
I Represent Christian Baker Jack Phillips. Believe Me, He’s a Good Man.
Ward Tipton Added Jun 19, 2018 - 9:34pm
Texas Lynn
 
Not to worry, the taxpayers will foot the bill so the government can continue unabated. If only we could hold government officials accountable no?