Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Gregory Matthews

Another View--Colorado

Recommended Posts

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

JoeMo

(The below was copied from the article"

“The time of trouble is about to come upon the people of God. Then it is that the decree will go forth forbidding those who keep the Sabbath of the Lord to buy or sell, and threatening them with punishment, and even death, if they do not observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath” (Last Day Events 257.4, emphasis added).  What is at stake in the bakery case is quite literally the ability of sexual minorities to buy and sell."

This is NOT about the rights of sexual minorities to buy and sell.  There are PLENTY of other bakeries in Denver who would have baked a wedding cake for a gay couple.  There are even some excellent Middle Eastern Bakeries here run by Muslims.  Why didn't they look for a cake at one of them? Or any of the hundreds of bakeries (including Christian bakeries) that would bake a cake for a gay couple.

Now, if a significant number of the Christian (and other anti-gay) bakers in Denver formed a coalition determined not to sell products to gay couples, that would be discrimination.

I would not be surprised if this baker wasn't targeted by the gay community here in Denver because of his strong religious stance - right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen
Quote

What is at stake in the bakery case is quite literally the ability of sexual minorities to buy and sell. It isn’t a total ban, but could amount to a rather substantial one if every activity that can be considered artistic or custom and which is related in any way to being married, having children, or expressing gender is banned. That could mean gifts of flowers, haircuts, catering, make-up, clothing, hotel stays, and the list goes on.

The fuller context! You copied one sentence from a paragraph and copied it to another. Misleading....both sentences are accurate, but when put together in your post it takes the reader down the road to perhaps the wrong conclusion of what the writer of the article was trying to say....like campaign adds!!!  "At stake" means the possibility of, as the writer wrote.

at stake
in danger of being lost
(Cambridge Dictionary)
 
A fair numbers of posters in these forums often take the view that  various events can lead to an 'end time event' or some other 'slippery slope' happening. I can very well see others, considering  the conservative religious climate,  trying to use this decision in a attempt to make "activity that can be considered artistic or custom".....flowers, haircuts, catering, make-up, clothing, hotel stays, and the list goes on." 
 
It all depends on ones point of view. It can just start with one small win but there are more waiting in the wings. Time will tell.
 
Discrimination is not a matter of many, in order to be true, it is true if just one is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
18 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Discrimination is not a matter of many, in order to be true, it is true if just one is.

I agree.  But is one person's discrimination worth literally making a federal case over - especially since no harm was done?  And if the so-called "discrimination" is based on firmly held religious beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoAspen

Lets remember the history of discrimination and its uses. Are you suggesting that discrimination is okay if a religious belief?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bonnie

I have asked this question before and it has either been ignored or brushed aside.

I pick and choose who I sell to online. So far it is not illegal for me to do that, but does not being illegal make discrimination okay because of religious or moral convictions? I do it on a regular basis.

Should I be forced to sell to individuals that choose to use my product in a manner that I never intended? Actually is not generally inflicting harm on others. I think that it does when those that buy from me involve children but mostly it is an adult issue.

A recent request was a ruffled cloth diaper with bows as the buyer wanted to play a baby girl in the evenings at home. Sorry,I don't do that. There are many that will and they charge accordingly. Should I be forced to participate in these type of sales given that I will, in fact, make a request like that for a special needs girl?  Children can be especially sensitive to the appearance of the special needs products they require so I do try to honor their requests. Just curious, not that I will change anything but when is it alright  to discriminate and when isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/W Photodude
Quote

... and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. Romans 13:14

I think this covers it for yourself and anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bonnie

I have settled this for myself a long time ago

In light of the questions as this, I was curious as to what the response would be. I discriminate on a regular basis due to my religious and personal moral beliefs

  Are you suggesting that discrimination is okay if a religious belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Bonnie:


Discrimination, in one aspect, is based upon the law, both case law and statuary law.

A central issue here is whether or not a "protected class," as defined by the law is involved in what you do.

As I understand the  position that you have taken, and the law, what you do is NOT prohibited by the law.  IOW, you do not, as I understand it, discriminate in violation of the law.

Gregory Matthews

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Going back to the Colorado bakery case.

The Court essentially ruled that the baker had not been given "due process" by Colorado.  That is important.  Everyone, to include criminals, is entitled to due process.

The Court did not rule on other important issues of that case.  So,  I predict that those issues will be litigated in the  future.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bonnie
4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Bonnie:


Discrimination, in one aspect, is based upon the law, both case law and statuary law.

A central issue here is whether or not a "protected class," as defined by the law is involved in what you do.

As I understand the  position that you have taken, and the law, what you do is NOT prohibited by the law.  IOW, you do not, as I understand it, discriminate in violation of the law.

Gregory Matthews

 

 

 

Thank you,  is not what I asked. I know that at this point what I do is not prohibited by law. Is discrimination only wrong when the specific discrimination is covered by a law? Is discrimination based on religious and moral convictions sometimes okay and sometimes not depending on a civil law? 

If I am reading you correctly discrimination concerning buyers based on my personal and religious convictions regularly is okay.  I refuse to participate in business with them strictly based on their behavior.

 

I KNOW that at this point what I do is not covered by a law. Not the question.  Is right and wrong for an individual to be based only by civil law or by religious and personal moral conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

The "moral" actions by which we operate may at times be governed by civil law, at other times by the Word of God, and sometimes by both.

 

So, it is possible that some of your business practices are governed by civil law and   not a moral law.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GayatfootofCross

I have been following this Author  for awhile now in other places.

My thoughts from long ago exactly.

...

Our history is full of irony

It's a safe bet the last days will be chock full of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bonnie
33 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

I have been following this Author  for awhile now in other places.

My thoughts from long ago exactly.

...

Our history is full of irony

It's a safe bet the last days will be chock full of them.

 

Interesting as to what Author you are following on other places. Which author would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bonnie
1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The "moral" actions by which we operate may at times be governed by civil law, at other times by the Word of God, and sometimes by both.

 

So, it is possible that some of your business practices are governed by civil law and   not a moral law.

 

 

The answer to my question should be fairly easy to answer.  I DO KNOW that at this moment  I am within my rights to refuse to do business with someone. Not my question.

Is discriminating against another person based on my religious and moral outlook "christian" just because at the moment it is not against the law.  Once it becomes against the law has my discrimination become unchristian?  Or is my discrimination unchristian now but I can get by with it because I am not under a civil law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bonnie
1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The "moral" actions by which we operate may at times be governed by civil law, at other times by the Word of God, and sometimes by both.

 

So, it is possible that some of your business practices are governed by civil law and   not a moral law.

 

 

Should civil law determine my moral actions as a christian?

What I am requested to do at times is perfectly legal. Disgusting but legal. My moral outlook says no, as apparently is true for the baker in question. Which one of us is governed by civil law and which one is governed by what they perceive as Gods Law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

In case of a conflict, moral law should trump civil law.

However,  often moral law is silent as to a position to take as some things that may have a c ivil law application simply do not have a moral value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bonnie

The baker does not seem to believe moral law is silent in this case. He would probably disagree with many on this forum believing that his personal and religious conviction does have moral value. He is not forcing anyone to share his values, only to practise his own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×