The Wedding Cake Wars.

In this country, many people don’t seem to understand our laws and values.

I remember what a friend said in the 1970′s when one of the popular fraternal orders was ordered to stop discriminating on the basis of race.  He said, “This is government infringing on private enterprise.”

The government granted the lodge a liqour license, health license and probably other permits.  These licenses obligated it to serve all members of the public without discriminating.

The same principle applies to all businesses who advertise themselves as open to the  public.  If someone wants to discriminate, he/she should find a job that does not involve serving the public.

The latest people in the news make wedding cakes.  They refuse to make and sell cakes celebrating marriages of gay couples.

I can’t think of a more unattractive way to present a religious ideal than to use it to deprive others of their happiness.  Marriage is a great place to display meanness.  Prohibiting interracial marriage, and the potential for happiness, was the goal of many Southern politicians and voters in pre civil rights America.

The self rightous couple who will not sell wedding cakes to gay couples have another option, separating their lives into private and professional.  They can sell wedding cakes to who ever wants one in the professional lives.  They can stand on a street corner preaching against gay marriage in their lives as private citizens.

That’s what all those who discriminated against black people had to do decades ago.  We’re a better country for it.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/colo-bakery-cant-refuse-wedding-cake-to-same-sex-7couple-court-rules-110280/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to The Wedding Cake Wars.

  1. RCCforLife says:

    “The self rightous couple who will not sell wedding cakes to gay couples have another option, separating their lives into private and professional. They can sell wedding cakes to who ever wants one in the professional lives. They can stand on a street corner preaching against gay marriage in their lives as private citizens.”

    So, are you saying this couple must separate their private and personal lives at the expense of betraying their own personal values, beliefs, and happiness in order to please other people and make them happy?

    • RCCforLife says:

      Correction in the question: Private and “professional” rather than personal.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      RCC 1:01 “So, are you saying this couple must separate their private and personal lives at the expense of betraying their own personal values..”

      If the want to do business with the public, they cannot discriminate. That’s what the end of segregation was all about.

      They do, of course, have to option of going into some line of work where they do not have to serve the public.

      You may not be old enough to remember that segregation was based on a religious belief that God condemned interracial marriage. It’s not one bit different than the reasons for discriminating against gays who want to marry.

      • RCCforLife says:

        “If the want to do business with the public, they cannot discriminate. That’s what the end of segregation was all about. They do, of course, have to option of going into some line of work where they do not have to serve the public.”

        Following the premise presented the argument collapses: Those who hold personal beliefs contrary to popular opinion, e.g. those disagreeing with same-sexmarriage and denying the baking of a wedding cake, “discriminate” against and “segregate” those who consider themselves to be gay; those who hold these personal beliefs (disagreeing with same-sex marriage and not baking the cake) are contrary to popular opinion and should not be allowed in public service (In your words: “They do, of course, have to option of going into some line of work where they do not have to serve the public.”); Therefore, instead of “discriminating” against and “segregating” those who consider themselves to be gay, now “discriminate” and “segregate” from public-professional service those who hold personal beliefs disagreeing with popular opinion, e.g. those who think same-sex marriage is acceptable and no one should deny their request for a cake.

        I think it’s reasonable to recognize that the concept of segregation may have started with a “religious” belief “that God condemned interracial marriage,” however, segregation can be confined to a personal “belief” regardless of it being backed by religious understanding or not.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          RCC 3:22 “…however, segregation can be confirmed to a personal ‘belief’ regardless of it being backed by religious understanding or not.”

          And, you are saying there is never, ever, not one ounce, of predjudice against gays when people refuse to rent, sell or provide services?? I could take your argument out of white southern sermons and just change “negro” to “homosexual” and change not a thing.

          • RCCforLife says:

            The argument presented is meant to show that: By claiming a group of people or a person, e.g. those baking or refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, in the public sector is “discriminating” and “segregating” against another group of people; and, should separate their personal beliefs or seek work out side public service is in turn discriminating and segregating a group of people.

            As well, “I could take your argument out of white southern sermon and just change “negro” to “homosexual…” Please add to your list, of changing “negro” to “homosexual” to “Christian” or to “Jew” or any other group of people.

            It sounds like an excellent response: if there is a group of people discriminating and segregating another group of people, lets discriminate and segregate that group of people. What as punishment for not holding beliefs that agree with popular opinion? Who is discriminating and segregating against who here?

          • entech says:

            Mathew 7 1:3

    • Jinx says:

      Pope Francis “Who am I to judge.”

  2. Catholic Dad says:

    What happened to the theory of you can do what ever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone? With that premises, cannot I than not refuse to make a cake, or take your picture? I do not know how not baking a cake for someone, would hurt them? If I was Jewish running a printing press, would I be required to print Nazi propaganda? Race a person cannot decide, but marriage is a choice. Regardless of what you think of gay “marriage”, we should all be concerned that the government has redefine the word MARRIAGE! How many more words are they going to redefine.

  3. entech says:

    So Mr. Philips supplied cakes for two dogs to get married, but refused two people. :roll:

  4. H.P.Drifter says:

    What about Pie?

    H.P.D.

  5. H.P.Drifter says:

    For once I agree with CD, except for one exception if these people are the only cake bakers for two hundred miles around.

    I would think they should set aside their personal agenda and be professional and bake the cakes. If they are not the only game in town or county, then who cares, they want to loose the business it’s okay. How many times have you gone to your favorite pizza pallor on Friday night only to find they are not taking any more orders for pizza.
    What these people are doing is setting themselves up is to be boycotted by Gays to buy other products which is bad for business. With this attitude they most likely (unless they have a very loyal following) will not be able to stay in business in a competitive market.

    H.P.D.

  6. H.P.Drifter says:

    CD

    If the Pope can clean up Latin America, I will invite Entec as well, I am sure he would like to meet the Pope and JC as much as I want to meet these people. I will bring the dog. So we can have a nice quiet dinner to keep the paparazzi and the autograph seekers away.

    H.P.D.

    • Catholic Dad says:

      HDP

      I am going to hold you to that! If however, you want to break bread before that, I’m all for it. We may not agree on a lot of things, but that does not mean we can’t learn from each other – maybe more for one than the other – I will let you decide who will get more out of it :-)

  7. H.P.Drifter says:

    Jon

    You can come too, I want witnesses, bring your camera. I am sure Entec and myself will have cameras as well.

    H.D.P.

  8. Michael Ross says:

    “The self rightous couple who will not sell wedding cakes to gay couples have another option, separating their lives into private and professional.”

    How are they self righteous? They are just trying to stand up for what they believe. Why couldn’t this gay couple just find another cake maker that would be more than happy to accommodate them instead of running to a lawyer and putting these decent people that are just trying to make an honest living out of business? I think gays and liberals in general are the most self righteous and self centered of all. If they don’t get their way someone’s got to hang.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 3:08 “Why couldn’t this gay couple just find another cake maker…

      You and C. Dad are trying to avoid an inconvenient truth. The truth is that what you are proposing is identical to, “Why don’t those negro people just go to a negro cafe instead of my white one. My faith tells me I should not serve them.”

      The Court system, and then our political system, has decided once and for all, separate but equal in not the law of our country. Whether this baker happens to think mixed race weddings or gay weddings are against his religion (apparently dog weddings are not against his religion) he needs to be a patriotic American and serve them equally.

      • Catholic Dad says:

        What a minute – you forgot HDP – he agreed with majority of what I said. I need that for the record – by the way does that constitute a miracle. All in good fun.

        Have a beautiful day

      • Wolfy32 says:

        I don’t agree with separate but equal, nor do I agree with segregation. I see the arguements from both sides… Why should the Gay couple have to go to someone else, and if the cake company feels they would be doing something unethical then why do they have to do whatever people tell them to? Our society is based on free enterprise. We can buy and sell to and from anyone we want. This is not the same as the black south… Sorry Jon, this is significantly different.. I don’t know if there were black only cafes or not? I would guess there were black sections and white sections. But, it’s beyond my time of reference.

        There were black sections on buses, — public transit, black schools — public education, black colleges – mostly state run institutions. The issue with the civil rights were that there were public laws and institutions invoking separate “but equal”. What kind of state and federal funding did black schools get? Vs. White? What kind of funding did universities get black vs. white? Amenities, facilities, quality of education, etc, was all limited and descriminated.. These tax dollars at work… Public policy…

        A private business just needs to follow the laws of the land. Which means, if they claim to be an equal opportunity employer, then they need to follow those rules. However, I don’t know of any business that can’t choose to buy and sell to who they want. Insurance companies descriminate against people with bad driving records, people that do risky things… Imagine a life insurance policy on someone that says they sky dive every day 365 days a year.. They probably would descriminate quite heavily.

        Health insurance descriminate against the unhealthy. (The sick are bad for business!!!)

        We live in a country where we can choose who we do business with. Gun companies can’t sell to someone with some mental illnesses on their record… Imagine someone that’s had a slight case of depression (pretty much any of us in the north) not being able to get a gun to go hunting legally, because of the offchance they might shoot themselves?

        A lawyer can choose not to represent a criminal, a counselor can choose not to help someone they feel is not in their best interest to help.

        It’s perfectly acceptable and normal to not do business with who you don’t want to do business with. Just because Gay is still such a hot topic, we have to have a law suit over it?

        If the cake company accepted public funds from state or federal grants or subsidies, that would be different. But, a private company can sell to who they want within the confines of the laws.

        Is it morally misrepresenative of what religion stands for? Of course. Intolerance is the complete opposite of christ. he welcomed everyone. Yet, the religious right are intollerant of everyone that’s not with them. I’m not saying I agree with the cake company at all. I think legally, there’s nothing wrong with what they did unless the cake company is accepting public food subsidies… Then they might be limited on who they can choose not to serve.

  9. entech says:

    Anti discrimination laws are a very difficult issue. You need to determine legitimate reasons and apply for an exemption.
    There was a case here where a Hotel (tavern) was granted permission to refuse to serve heterosexual men, the application was considered for a long time and observations made to verify the grounds for the request. The request was granted because it was shown that a frequent occurrence was that gangs of young men would go there with the express intention of “kicking some queers”. There was a period 20-30 years ago when “poofter bashing” was seen as a sport form, it came to an abrupt end when a straight young man, father of two young children, was taking a short cut to the railways station after working late, unknown to him it was known as something of a pickup area. Three young men got more than 20 years in jail for beating him to death.
    Places that serve liquor have several exemptions and notices are posted to the effect that “the management reserves the right to refuse admission” followed by list – drunk, under age, inappropriate dress and so on and in the case above they listed the right to be exclusively homosexual in its choice of clientele.
    I wonder where supporters of the baker stand on this issue in regard to the hotels right to be selective about who it served, or, would it defend the right of hoodlums to be served in a place offering a service to the public.
    Perhaps the baker should put up a discrete non offensive sign to the effect that we reserve the right to refuse service to dirty degenerates.

    • entech says:

      What do you think RCCforlife and all the other supporters of cakemakers.
      Should the gay bar owner be obliged to open for all and just wait until they come wreck the place, the business and the customers, what right has he to support the quiet fun of a few perverts while depriving good, honest upright straights of their fun?

      Perhaps he could adopt “the American way” and buy a few shotguns and pick them off as the come through the door ?

      • RCCforLife says:

        Thank you for sharing the gospel passage from Matthew. There is a difference between specifically judgement and condemning a person or group of people versus judging the rightness or wrongness of a person or group of peoples actions. In our country we do this all the time, e.g. judging the action of physically, verbally, or sexually abuses another person, or the action committing theft of personal property. I am certain most all people would agree these actions are leading to an injustice.

        In my opinion, I am not casting judgement on any person or group of people, rather judging the rightness or wrongness of an action which we are free to do, determine, and talk about in our country. However, just because popular opinion claims an action to be right or true, does not always mean it is right or true does it?

        Peace and blessings on your day!

        • entech says:

          your opinion is wrong you are very judgmental.

        • Michael Ross says:

          “However, just because popular opinion claims an action to be right or true, does not always mean it is right or true does it? ”

          I’m afraid it does in this day and age, RCC. PC not BC (biblically correct) rules the day. If the media pushes for something long enough the public, no longer able to think for themselves, will come around to accepting it.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          RCC 12:27 “In my opinion, I am not casting judgement on any person or group of people, rather judging their rightness or wrongness of an action which we are free to do…”

          That, of course, was what Martin Luther King and the entire civil rights movement was all about. It is that we are free to believe whatever we wish. But in our lives as citizens we are not free to discriminate and take opportunities away from other people. If we allow religion to be the source of our discrimination, there is no way to limit how much discrimination takes place. We’re soon back to segregation.

          I hope you took the time to watch this brief video that Carr posted:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois&app=desktop

          • Michael Ross says:

            34Opening his mouth, Peter said:
            “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. “(Acts 10:)

            I watched the video twice and could care less what “white preachers in the ’50s” had to say. God loves all His races and makes no distinction, but He clearly condemns homosexuality.

          • entech says:

            God loves all, God loves everybody, except queers?
            Then why would a perfect being that knows all make such a thing possible, or perhaps being perfect is a bit boring so he created something he could hate just to break the boredom?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 12:00 “Then why would a perfect being that knows all mae such a thing possible, or perhaps being perfect is a bit boring so he created somthing he could hate just to break the boredom?”

            Brilliant insight. The explanation as to why the god would creat a group and they disapprove has to have some explanation, and boredom seems logical.

            I suppose another possibility is, “The people need to know I mean business, that I’m no pushover. So, I’ll create a group I disapprove of and the I’ll put the hammer down on them.”

            The only trouble with my theory is Jesus never said a word about gays. Michael has some secret source giving him information the rest of us don’t have.

          • Michael Ross says:

            Yes Jon, God speaks to me in private revelation. I am God’s end-time apostle and I speak His Word. Hear and tremble.

          • entech says:

            I speak His Word. Hear and tremble.
            How many times has that sought of thing been said? I love the inglorious vanity of much of it.

            I met a traveller from an antique land
            Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
            Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
            Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
            And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
            Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
            Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
            The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
            And on the pedestal these words appear:
            “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
            Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
            Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
            Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
            The lone and level sands stretch far away.

            Percy Byce Shelley

            Or perhaps as I have forgotten Omar for a while;
            Alike for those who for To-day prepare,
            And those that after some To-morrow stare,
            A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
            “Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There.”

            Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss’d
            Of the Two Worlds so wisely–they are thrust
            Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
            Are scatter’d, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.
            (Dust – sand?)

            Given that the biblical writings are essentially words for a desert people, drifting sands changing the landscape, burying past glories and, perhaps, hiding the path to future potential, is a good metaphor.
            One must wonder which is the most delusional, the people that wrote these things of their heroes, gods, goddesses and sundry other admirable beings, or, the readers who took/take them seriously?

            My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
            Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair

            The lone and level sands stretch far away.

            Vanity, vanity, all is vanity Michael, I am sure you remember those words.

          • Michael Ross says:

            entec, I think if know anything about me you would know I’m being sarcastic. Jon wants to believe I have a secret source of knowledge. I have the same source as anyone, the Word of God. I am a student of the Word, you are a scoffer.

          • entech says:

            Michael, I think not so much scoffing as being too extreme when inviting people to consider the possibility of being wrong. In many ways I think that I am being sarcastic, or at least satirical, it is not my intention (mostly) to be hurtful.
            An exaggerator perhaps. I am sure that even you cringe a little at some things Christians say, St. Augustine did.

            But enough trying to explain myself, I am a non-believer and that is bad enough for most, enough to warrant any accusation or piece of invective. (Not you I must add). As much as I may scoff :oops: at your excessive use of quotes I do like the way that it sends my mind on little voyage, some of discovery many of remembrance. Hear and tremble sent me back to school and then to Shelley and on to all the failed tyrants and megalomaniacs.
            I do realise that you talk of personal revelation and so on was not intended as serious, but it does worry me sometimes that your quotes are (or at least appear to be) taken seriously, the source for all Biblical writing as the word of God must ultimately come from some form of revelation.

            Perhaps I find some things just too wrong, too ridiculous and feel the need to point it out, to ridicule it. A recent post was a serious attempt to define atheist and by extension, if disbelief in God then define God and so on because without common and accepted definitions it really is all unintelligible. Which brings me to a quote from one of your founding fathers, one of those lauded as intending a Christian nation.

            “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
            Thomas Jefferson

  10. H.P.Drifter says:

    Okay, Okay

    Entec is probably right, I really do need a new pair of glasses, in this weather I don’t think I am going to get them tomorrow anyway.

    Predicted to be -35 below zero with wind chill in the morning.(where I am)
    Sounds to me after listening to Michael, if these people are in the middle of Denver, then they are grand standing for no reason other than self promotion anyway.

    (What are these idiots doing in the middle of Denver anyway?) After all when it is illegal to discriminate, they should get a ticket with a nice size fine, to detour this kind of nonsense. Acknowledge reality or it automatically works against you.

    Really in this day and age there is no excuse for this type of behavior. Give them the thousand fine and no publicity. Get them where it hurts, in their pocket book.

    I really dislike this much to do about nothing publicity taking up the public print. We have far more serious issues to deal with than who gets to eat cake. Black, White, Green or Blue, Gay or Jew all these people need to knock off this poor me crap. Think I will go to bed, may be I will up on the right side of the bed tomorrow anyway. Good Night Everybody.

    H.P.D.

    • RCCforLife says:

      “Really in this day and age there is no excuse for this type of behavior. Give them the thousand fine and no publicity. Get them where it hurts, in their pocket book.”

      Please note that by recalling history this argument suggested has all ready been tried. During the English reformation (if you would like to refer to it as that) once a king/queen discovered of a plot, by some catholic, to overthrow the monarchy and reestablish a new one, what happened? The monarch slapped and increased monetary fines on the people for not following the law of the land.

      You’re right we do have issues far more important to speak about than who gets to eat a cake. However, along with playing the pity party oh poor me game, we cannot play the avoidance game either.

      • entech says:

        I don’t recall the fines but the was certainly a lot of internecine inquisitions going on, even the archbishop of Canterbury – Cranmer got burnt at the stake. But at least he gave us a bible in English something Rome did its level best to prevent.

        To me this is one of cases where both sides are wrong: the cake makers were probably well known for the extremeness of their religious views, the couple probably knew the business would be refused and the grounds for that refusal, both sides of the argument got what they were looking for, publicity.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      HPD 9:54 “We have far more serious issues to deal with than who gets to eat cake.”

      That’s the peculiar thing about our country, and maybe many others. Huge issues are resolved over what might be seen by many as trivial. Where can black people sit on a bus in Montgomery? What can be said in a prayer before a public meeting? What pictures can hang on the wall of a public school?

      I haven’t read up much about the wedding cake case–I wonder if there was something going on between the cake baker and the couple before all this came up. It doesn’t matter if there was, the principle has to be hammered out. It’s just that if the ruling stands, it will affect all kinds of small business owner who thought they could insert their religious views into who they do business with.

      • Wolfy32 says:

        Regardless of the issues around Homo sexuality, I strongly believe if we’re going to accept free enterprise as a practice in America, then we need to stand by it. Stores and business have a right to choose who they do business with, within the law..

        If the laws take this choice away, then I don’t believe we have free enterprise anymore. We have walking on eggshells business. My dad has his own accounting firm. If he goes over a businesses books and sees they’re failing, and most likely won’t be able to pay him for his services. What if the business owner is gay of the failing business. My dad doesn’t even know this, and refuses to take him on as a client, and then get’s sued for refusing him for descrimination? Suddenly, what was a most likely good sound business decision turns into a political issue.

        Who’s going to protect the private businesses if the business owners don’t have the right to protect themselves?

        It’s completely against free enterprise to not be able to choose clientelle.

        What’s next? It’s illegal to descriminate against sex offenders applying for public jobs?

        • Wolfy32 says:

          I should state that I don’t believe it’s right for a business to descriminate on it’s clientelle because the couple is gay, unless the descrimination is related to that industry… I don’t know, maybe it’s a hetero dating website… Should the site be able to refuse people that state on the dating site that their gay, if the business is founded to serving hetero singles? I would in that case think, the descrimination would be appropriate.

          However, I also feel that business has rights to do business as it chooses even if it’s unethically descriminating. It’s not the 50s and 60s anymore. Business that go against the trend will eventually have to change to become more tolerant or risk going out of business.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wolfy32 4:17 “However, I also feel that business has the right to do business as it chooses even if it’s unethically discriminating.”

            Businesses can change different prices to different customers if there is a difference in the costs they incur. Thus, drivers in the statistical categories that have more accidents pay more than others, like teenagers. However, if a firm has a policy of choosing white employees over black employees who are equal, there is a law against that. A motel cannot refuse rooms to black people who are equal in cost to white people. So, there are specific laws that are directly in conflict with what you consider to be “right”.

            When it comes to applying where the principles of the civil rights act apply elsewhere, it is not clear until there are lots of court cases that are in agreement. I think courts will have a hard time ruling consistently in favor of people who want to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs because religious beliefs have no boundaries. Refusing to do business with Catholics might be just around the corner.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            The apocalyptic view of Revelations, indicates, that Christians / catholics will at some point be the ones descriminated against economically.

            That anyone that refuses the mark on his palm or on his forehead, will be unable to buy or sell.

            My grandmother for a long time refused a debit card, saying it’s the next step to the mark. She may have been partially right…

            How far are we away from tattooed circuitry to contain our personal information on our body? We thought we were close with RFID, but, those were known to cause isolated cases of cancer around the area the chip was embedded. However, we’re close to microscopic circuits that could just be woven into skin and run off the body’s power for Identification, banking information, credit card information, etc.

            I don’t know how someone thousands of years ago could have thought of that type of economy, but, they did. It’s around the corner from now… I wonder if Religious orders will fall in line with the mainstream when it happens, or will companies choose not to use the palm or forehead for biblical reasons?

            Ha! ;)

            That said, I have a tough time of where the line is drawn. If people want to play the victom to get what they want, they will. In this case it’s a wedding cake. What if next time they use their special homosexuality to get another few thousand in damages from another company. Using the descrimination card to be “victoms”. How do we define where a special group gets special considerations? Yes, some people will use it correctly, others will definately milk the system.

      • H.P.Drifter says:

        Yes Jon

        Huge issues are solved over small issues, my mistake. Always have been and always will be

        H.P.D

  11. eric haugen says:

    Schools are public places. Government meetings are open to the public. Isn’t it true that much of the argument used above could also demand prayer be allowed in these places?

    • RCCforLife says:

      But we don’t want to offend anyone who holds beliefs contrary the expression of ones own…

    • entech says:

      As you probably know by now I am not local and Have no right to speak about local things, but, so many people write about government not making any regulation and by inference not permitting the promulgation of any religion. Australia has the same thing written into its constitution as well, yet that have religious instruction in schools. The instruction is given by proselyting evangelicals, they deny the accusation but the leader has been heard to say our job is make little disciples for Jesus. Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterians amongst others comp-lain and say it is wrong and should not happen (atheists are as expect amongst the others). You sound as if you would like the same situation to be allowed in your country, I agree but it should be inclusive – Hindu, Muslim and Jewish and any other with a reasonable following should be able to have their day of prayer in government, schools are a special case, a -place of learning, so they should have specialist teachers of comparative religion the beliefs, differences and arguments for and against, this should include the possibility of their being a valid position of no religion.
      This could, of course, include young earth creationism with its partner anti- evolution – the real evolution theories should be taught purely in science and biology.

  12. Carr says:

    You may have seen this last year. However, it is an excellent display of those whose scream that certain things are destroying the fabric of this country. In the not too distant past, these people probably would not have made a cake for my husband and me. My hope is that free markets will work – people that disagree with them will take their business elsewhere. As time goes by, they will be out of business. This issue is a generational one. My children don’t even consider it.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

    • entech says:

      Pastor he may be but could he possibly be included in that definition of good, substantial, bible believing, intelligent, orthodox Christians.
      He had me pulled into believing he was another screaming loony, until he admitted he had the wrong speech, absolutely brilliant. Thank you Carr you have restored my belief in the general sanity of America.

      • Carr says:

        Believe me, I continually question the general sanity of people. But, then again, I live in Texas! I have been told, numerous times, that I am the wrong type of Christian. I am actually excited about the new Pope. He is trying to educate Christians on how to be Christian. But, living in the buckle of the Bible Belt, many here believe he is the anti-Christ.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Carr 12:53 Thank you so much for posting that link, appropriate for the discussion some of us are having. The video made the rounds a year of so ago and I had forgotten about it.

      The odd thing about discrimination is that it is hard to comprehend, or internalize, unless one has experienced it or been close to it. Even then, some people who have been discriminated against are not able to put themselves in the shoes of another and simply participate in discriminating against others.

      After the gay rights movement had been in full force for several years, transgendered people started showing up at their gatherings. Gays and their supporters were taken aback and some wanted nothing to do with trans people. Here on our board, we see Catholics, a group who was not considered a legit part of society back when our country was founded, now jumping on board to put down gays.

      It’s no wonder school teachers who used to conduct an exercise where students who wear something to distinguish themselves from others and carry out discriminating behavior had to stop it because it spun out of control. There is something in our make up we have to work to overcome.

      • Carr says:

        So true, Jon! If we could all live by, “Do unto others ……….” rather than getting so engrossed in the semantics and justification of religious dogma, most of our problems would melt away. Unfortunately, that will never happen since it is human nature to want to claim control and superiority over another.

  13. H.P.Drifter says:

    Come on Eric lets not equate eating cake with praying.
    A moment of silence would probably be a good thing before a public a meeting ( Give people time to get their thoughts together before they start verbally bashing each other in public) The Christians pray what ever they want and the rest of can repeat to our selves, we are not going beat these guys heads for any reason, we will not be provoked and so forth, (whatever)

    If the Christians or the homophobic think the Gay Cake rush is going hurt business, think again, impose dress standards. If the guys and girls do come in mass for a wedding cake, be a businessman, Paint the place pink and get pink uniforms and double your prices, nothing in the law says you can not charge more for a better cake.

    Also you would doing the breast cancer people a favor by wearing pink, which might get you more business. Then you can turn people down for legitimate reasons. I can’t bake more than 300 hundred cakes a week at a three thousand dollars a piece. And you can tell people, yes by next year we we will be set up to make a thousand cakes a week with out sacrificing quality. (you can thank Entec for the the dress standards, Tut Tut Tolerance)

    H.P.D.

  14. H.P.Drifter says:

    To all you merchants out there believe this:

    For every couple than comes to visit, disregarding faith, religion, sect, politics, sex or gender or looks, no matter what business you run.

    There are two sets of parents more or less, four set of grandparents more or less. Maybe some great grand parents, aunts, uncles and cousins who have given money to this couple. Whomever they maybe to make this marriage come off, no matter the hard ship in raising the money.

    And they are all thinking, the same thing, is she the right for her partner or is he the right one for his partner.

    And there is more questions than answers, One dad in his the easy chair staring at the at the ceiling wondering. if his little girls partner is going be like the father-in-law, not the sharpest knife in the drawer (but the partner is still in school) or the mother is wondering whether her sons partner is going to be like the mother-in law, the lady that never shuts up and monopolizes the conversation at ever turn ( but does go to church regularly). I am not even going speculate what grandparents aunts, uncles and cousins are thinking, this is probably not the first time these questions have come up.

    Probably most of these people at this point are either on their knees or lying in bed with a cold compress, or outside trying to do chores that will take their mind of what is going happen here shortly.

    Now Mr Mrs Ms or Mz merchant the couple that stands before you, this young couple probably has more disposable money at their disposal right now than they ever had or will have in the future without obligation.
    So no matter what they want, or contract for, please sell it to them, A cake, a car, house, a banquette, a venue for the wedding, a honey moon package, gifts whatever. The economy need you the merchant to put this money back in circulation in the economy.

    Thank you for your attention

    H.P.D.

  15. H.P.Drifter says:

    What I have been trying to say here, is that the Gay people belong to somebody not necessary gay. As I said before equal protection under the law (if we can get) is important, Its the only thing we have left, they have practically stripped us of all our personal liberties in the name of safety because of the acts of a few people.

    In fact they have made a business out it. The freedom to do anything is slowing slipping away, I want to see Jesus explain all those fish to the DNR, where did he get them, where is his receipt ( I forget to ask Entec did he get his receipt with the dictionary and does he still carry it )

    I want to know just what is happening here in society, we need to concentrate and spend funds on education and helping people cope with mental health issues, maybe it would bring the crime rate down. Start coping with problems before they become problems is a much cheaper way (economical way) not necessary less expensive in the beginning, prevention is effective.

    The diverse thinking to me is mind boggling ( and analyzing this stuff has been part of my job and I am trained to do so) When a guy like me looks out the window and thinks what happened to common sense, is this not part of the genome or is it something that has to be learned. (this question academics have been fighting over since education began as we know it) still no answers.

    Will we ever get on the right track to make this world more user friendly?
    I wonder. We do have the resources to do this with, or will personal agendas win out and only make things worse.

    H.D.P.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>