They aren’t participating in a gay marriage, they’re making a cake. Just like I said to somebody else: did they not provide cakes to atheist weddings? If you’re taking the strict Christian view of marriage and what it should be and what it’s for atheists’ weddings are just as far removed from those rules as gay weddings.
“Just like I said to somebody else: did they not provide cakes to atheist weddings?”
I have no idea. In any case seems to me the determining factor isn’t up to any one else. Taking someone to court for not baking a cake for you is what seems to be idiotic grandstanding to me.
Does a Satanist wanting a cake celebrating a black Mass have to get served too?
Freegards
discostu: They aren’t participating in a gay marriage, they’re making a cake.
This issue seems to be ya'lls bottom line. And it's flawed in two ways.
First, the bakers would and did sell homosexuals anything else in the bakery, including birthday cakes.
So here's the question: what is the difference between a birthday or other cake, and a wedding cake? Not, as you two keep obsessing over, the word "cake." No, if you're really observant, you'll notice that the word that changes, the single concept here, is the word "wedding." So we can subtract the "cake" part, because that does not cause the distinction in the baker's willingness to sell. Got it?
So your arguments boil down to the idea that a wedding is not a religious event.
I suppose that you might then argue that because weddings can be done in civil ceremonies, that therefore they are not religious events - because civil ceremonies are not religious events. But for that to be true, you would have to make civil ceremonies the only source of weddings - meaning you'd have to subtract weddings from religion.
Now, since every single religion in the world has at least two things in common - worship of God and the marriage ceremony under their particular beliefs, you're going to have, oh, I don't know, a fairly dificult time selling the idea that marriage is not a religious event for someone affiliated with a specific religion that just so happens to believe that, yes, marriage is a religious event. And what is a wedding? Come on, you can do it - that's right, it's the marriage ceremony that is that particular religious event we're talking about here.
So where are we now? Weddings are acknowledged worldwide as religious events, and that cake isn't the thing being objected to.
That means that wedding cakes are wedding cakes only because they are part of a religious event, when that marriage is not being done by a civil ceremony. And, there are religions that do not consider civil ceremonies binding, and only accept marriage in their church as valid. Like, lots of religions. Like, most religions, if not all religions. And why? Because, surprisingly enough, people who are members of religions actually believe that God needs to be involved in a wedding ceremony. And being extremely perceptive, they have noticed that God is specifically not involved in a civil ceremony.
So the conclusion here is that your fundamental argument is utterly without merit. Further, it goes against the religious traditions and history of the entire human race, and denies the personal beliefs of almost all of the seven billion people on the planet. In addition, even a child recognizes the connections between these terms (i.e. "wedding" and "wedding cake," if you've forgotten), and that's why no one has ever had to write this all out before. Because before now, no one would dare present such an insultingly stupid argument as you two have done - and continue to do, like two insolent children enjoying their insolence.
But of course, there's a lot of money behind this agenda, and I'm sure you are both well paid to put out the stupidest, most insultingly obviously wrong possible arguments, in order to create a mess out of subjects your employers told you to make a mess out of, in order to block clear thinking about them.
Your problem is that neither of you are very good at what you do.