Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Of course, the Bible supports slavery, too. My branch of Christianity does not take this view, but it also allows female priests, which other branches do not. It’s all a matter of beliefs.
Luv ya, emilybee. People like you and Mr. Bruni give me the courage to stand up. That and I refuse to bow to having less courage than S does ;).
“If I was doing the baking and was devout, I’d be feeling conflicted right: keep my hand down, hoping that if I got the customer I dreaded having to turn away they’d have the decency to respect my beliefs, or raise the hand in the hope it would help avoid painful moments all around.”
A strategy might be to find out who does, so you could say - I can’t take you on right now, but my friend Susie at Rainbow Bakery can help you. That would show goodwill.
I think I understand some of the inconsistency. Until recently, many/most gays were in the closet more or less. Growing up, we might have suspected that a classmate was gay, but unless he/she was out, we didn’t know for sure. So gays were largely an abstract “other” without names or faces. Since they were doing something the rest of us were not likely to be doing (being gay) we did not have to face the fact that we might be guilty or fall prey of the temptation of the same sins. Attitudes have changed alot in recent times, in large part because people have come out of the closet and we have had to face the fact that they are our friends, our relatives, our children. And it’s a lot harder to say “we should stone them” when it’s your child you are talking about.
Gary Tuchman was on cnn interviewing florists in a small town in Georgia. One woman, when asked about serving other types of sinners, said that those sins were “different”. She probably hasn’t put a lot of thought into what makes them different, but IMHO it’s largely because they cannot see themselves in a gay situation, whereas other sins are more readily imaginable.
Notice that many times in the bible where homosexuality is mentioned, fornication is mentioned in the same sentence. Have you heard of any bakeries refusing to make a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother? In the oft-cited passage from Paul, he also mentions drunkards. Ever attend a wedding where some of the guests get crocked? Should bakers ask whether liquor will be served and how long the bar will be open? Whether guests are likely to get drunk or not?
I am with hayden on the question of which sins can lead to the denial of service based on religious belief. Could a gay person claim discrimination by showing the business owner’s claim of non-service based on their religion is false because the business owner was not consistent in which sins lead to refusal of service. For example if it was shown the pizzeria catered a baby shower for an unwed mother or a party celebrating someone’s divorce or how about if they catered a party for a couple they knew were committing adultery how could they claim the sin of homosexuality deserved refusal of service but not the other sins?
Is there a ranking or priority order of sins?
I think it’s easy to tell homophobia as a way to distsnce oneself from the fear of “turning” gay. For example, if I were a make and frightened of that prospect, I’d make sure everyone knew about my prowess in picking up chicks when with other guys, or how women couldn’t keep their hands off me.
What a wonderful world it would be if it was that simple. Do the kind thing, respectful of the militants out there thing, too often and… voila!.. a pattern of emerges.
Why is the thoughtful, plan-in-advance thing something the vendor should be responsible for? Shouldn’t customers with special needs, “delicious cupcakes” or not, show a little adaptability? Respect for other people’s feelings?
“I still don’t understand the fixation so many of my fellow Christians have on homosexuality. Is it worse than taking the Lord’s name in vain? Stealing? Adultery”
Hayden, for many Christiians, the issue is not having a problem with homosexuality, the issue is with gay marriage. Some people truly, sincerely believe that marriage is a sacrament between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. They believe that marriage and childbearing are the sacred duty of believers. In my church, marriage isn’t a sacrament, so I don’t feel the same way, but many people do. I personally know more than a few people who fully support legal protection for same sex couples up to and including civil marriage, but not sacramental marriage. I don’t believe it is my place to judge the sacraments of any other faith because that is the core of their faith. I wonder what the answer would have been if that reporter had asked the pizzeria owner the follow-up question of whether she believes in civil partnerships. But we will never know if she is a bigot who hates gays or is someone who would have catered an event not called marriage.
No, because it’s irrelevant. If it’s illegal to discriminate against gays in a certain jurisdiction, then it’s illegal. If it’s not illegal, then it’s not illegal.
I am going to a wedding reception for a gay couple tonight.
I guess we are going to rot in …
I will be sure to bring that up. 
“Could a gay person claim discrimination by showing the business owner’s claim of non-service based on their religion is false because the business owner was not consistent in which sins lead to refusal of service.”
It’s not necessarily about judging a sin, it is just as likely to be because in many faiths marriage is a sacrament, and as MOWC said earlier from her daughter’s experience in the clergy, the progress of gay marriage has been so quick that even the most liberal denominations haven’t kept up.
If Pope Francis were to declare tomorrow that gay marriage was acceptable in the eyes of the church, that would be that for Catholics, but those who believe his communication of the will of God is absolute, have to find gay marriage impossible in the church,
Here is a commentary that I found worthwhile.
Shouldn’t Rosa Parks have shown a little adaptability and gone to the back of the bus? Every time it sounds reasonable, I keep going back to the things that we don’t NOW think were so reasonable after all. Why were the cupcakes “special needs” other than their gaiety again?
That piece does have some interesting points:
Boycotts are all well and good, voting with the feet and all that, but the information age seems to have upped the ante, as far as mob recruitment, to the point that the most vicious and hateful draw a much larger group of low IQ peasants.
Cupcakes and public transportation. Don’t see it.
I suppose it would work just as well if we consider the religiously burdened as the ‘special needs’ party. That would make the customer the mean one, wouldn’t it?
It’s the concept, catahoula.
To remind again, the pizzeria in Indiana is in a place where there is no anti-discrimination law. So they are free to discriminate against gays and lesbians. I’m beginning to wonder if they didn’t announce this to get publicity, knowing that many people in this country would leap to their defense. They’ve certainly made out well for talking about something that didn’t apply to them.
“ians. I’m beginning to wonder if they didn’t announce this to get publicity, knowing that many people in this country would leap to their defense.”
How would they know that? They actually wouldn’t. That’s just the latest justification for indefensible behavior toward the pizzeria’s owners. To cast them in a less sympathetic light so as not to cede the moral high ground that the bullies think they held.
I see it as conflation, pg.
We’re all different, though and that’s a good thing.
Absent a legally protected class, how can one compare public transportation, which falls under 14th Amendment protection since it is government run, with a private bakery? On that level it is not even an argument. So the Rosa Parks example is irrelevant legally, but of course not morally. One can certainly argue that on a moral level everyone should act as if equal protection and equal treatment was the norm. Or one can argue that religious beliefs trump that in certain cases. But don’t try to make that a legal argument in this case.
Admittedly I haven’t gone back to read everything. If I misinterpreted those posts, my apologies.
Also, the phrase “special needs” was used. I understand that it is strictly an OK use of those words, but of course in general society that phrase has a particular meaning. Perhaps in the future a different description could be used for this case.