Posted on 02/23/2015 7:15:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A homosexual couple goes into a known Christian bakery and asks for a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage,” is refused and then files a government complaint or sues. “Intolerance! Bigotry! Equal access!” is the cry. Many Americans have read of such stories in the news. Often the attempted purchase is a set-up, with activist-minded individuals targeting bakers whom they know will decline the request and then be vulnerable to state persecution by zealous bureaucrats.
It’s a new front in the war on faith, legitimate freedom and private property rights. Many point out that it constitutes an unprecedented trampling of religious liberty, and this is true. It also violates the principle of freedom of association, which isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but should be upheld. But neither of these arguments should be the centerpiece of the fight against the tyranny in question. There is another, far more powerful argument:
Freedom of speech.
Usually missed in the commentary on this subject is that the bakers in question are not refusing service to a type of people — they are refusing to be party to a type of message. This is not debatable. When you put writing on a same-sex “wedding” cake, you’re crafting a message; if you place figurines (of two men, for instance) on that cake, you’re erecting symbols relating that message. Note here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that “Symbolic Speech” — a legal term in U.S. law — is protected under the First Amendment; examples of such rulings would be that pertaining to flag-burning and the Tinker v. Des Moines case.
And can we compel people to participate in the creation of a message? Forced speech is not free speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Then go about with yourself, taking comfort that the part you play in ‘normalizing’ perversion does no harm to your testimony as a christian. Peace
Then go about with yourself, taking comfort that the part you play in ‘normalizing’ perversion does no harm to your testimony as a christian. Peace
Homosexuality was abnormal long before they hired bakers, or florists. Eating cake, or buying flowers does not normalize anything.
Like Sister. Phyllis taught us in the 6th grade- God is not going to ask you what other people did. You are going to be asked what you did. No number, or condition of homosexuals is ever going to cause me to treat people poorly (I hope- but hey, I’m human).
A cake is a cake. Many wedding cakes are neutral, no pair of men on top. I see no problem with baking a cake without a symbol of two men on it. Who writes words on a wedding cake? What they do with the cake after it’s sold is their business. I in no way want gay marriage or approve of it. I just don’t see this as a huge battle.
I will, however, pray for this woman.
Yes, it does happen - even at straight weddings before there was gay marriage. I have attended weddings where there was writing on the cake.
Writing with icing is not easy. I believe the bakery did it.
At no point did I say ‘treat them poorly.
I did say I would NOT participate in the legitimization of perversion.
That refusal is nothing more than a refusal to participate with my services.
You posted: Then go about with yourself, taking comfort that the part you play in ‘normalizing’ perversion does no harm to your testimony as a christian. Peace
************
I don’t know about that, but if it were my business I would try and convey the message of the Gospel to these (and all) customers. I believe we must be careful not to hate those whom we believe are sinners. A good Christian would engage (no pun intended) the customers and use their coming to his bakery as an opportunity to share Jesus with them. At a minimum you’d have two opportunities to do this: at the time the order is made and when the cake is picked up or (better yet) delivered to the site.
The baker should state that he does not make novelty cakes.
Yes, please DO convey the Gospel message.
‘Jesus died for your sins, and your homosexual BEHAVIOR is a sin. Accept Him as Lord and Savior, Go and sin no more, and please do not ask me again to PARTICIPATE in legitimizing your sinful behavior, because I cannot.’
NOTHING in that is hateful. It IS hateful to coddle a sinner, “It’s ok, I understand, it’s a big nasty world, but God loves you, it’s ok.”
The First Amendment contains the right of the people to peaceably assemble. This is the freedom to associate.
From Wikipedia:
Freedom of associationAlthough the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." In Roberts the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression, such as gender.
However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.
Two weeks ago, South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein ruled in The Diocese of South Carolina vs The Episcopal Church of the United States that the First Amendment grants a "freedom to disassociate."
From the article:
The Court found that “the Constitution and Canons of TEC have no provisions which state that a member diocese cannot voluntarily withdraw its membership.” The ruling found that had there been such a provision, it would have violated the Diocese’s “constitutionally-protected right” to freedom of association. “With the freedom to associate goes its corollary, the freedom to disassociate,” Judge Goodstein said.
These women was exercising their freedom to disassociate when she chose not to bake a cake or sell flowers for a purpose she did not agree with.
They should take this to the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds, as well as equal protection grounds. Apparently, South Carolina's freedom to disassociate is Oregon's and Washington's discrimination.
-PJ
I have to tell you that the old saying, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” applies to spreading the Gospel, in my view. I would approach it differently: “I am a person of faith, and my faith teaches that certain behaviors are sinful. I am a sinner, as we all are. I believe that God sent His Son Jesus to suffer and die as payment for our sins, if we will accept Him and turn from our sin, as he taught us. I’d like to share with you more about my faith...”
That’s just me. We are all different.
Indeed, we are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.