Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

[vincent1989]

Your position is completely untenable.

no more so than people who subscribe to modern translations over and above the KJV (or any based on the textus receptus for that matter).

This is an unsubstantiated myth perpetuated by Tischendorf, to mitigate his role in the theft of the text.

Ah yes, the person who brought us this enlightened text, one of the first of the Alexandrian line which, unless I'm mistaken, NA27/28 also stem from, also happens to be a liar and a thief, very Christlike.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

can you guys just start another thread about bibles or something?

Agree, we want to read about gay cakes.

 

[Woden]

Hang on if a certain religion is allowed to not serve pork or alcahol products(I think that happened)then why shouldn't this other religion be allowed to do as they wish?

I'm not a homophobe for the record just fed up of the minority intruding on the majorities ways.

Because it's a product they don't sell. A Muslim butcher wouldn't stock bacon.

The bakery does make custom cakes though.

 

[Sankari]

no more so than people who subscribe to modern translations over and above the KJV (or any based on the textus receptus for that matter).

No, that's complete nonsense.

Ah yes, the person who brought us this enlightened text, one of the first of the Alexandrian line which, unless I'm mistaken, NA27/28 also stem from, also happens to be a liar and a thief, very Christlike.

No, NA27 & NA28 are eclectic texts. They're not Alexandrian.

We're done here.

 

[Dis86]

Because it's a product they don't sell. A Muslim butcher wouldn't stock bacon.

The bakery does make custom cakes though.

A butcher sells meat. If you're saying they can be selective about what animals it's from then why doesn't a baker have a right to select what custom cakes they sell?

 

[dowie]

Muslim baker and Mohammed cake is a better example for people who think this ruling was a good thing

 

[SteveOBHave]

rather an empty and pointless post if you're not going to highlight which posts you feel are 'bigoted' and 'ignorant' or attempt to criticise or correct them?

Really? I need to explain it?

The whole thread is dehumanising to a subsection of society based on their sexuality. I see attempts at conflating the issue by tying in religion and throwing out hyperbole to make the point when in actuality the issue is bigotry plain and simple. It's a freaking cake! Ask yourself why they have an issue with gay symbolism? Moreover ask yourself why they're using their religion as an excuse to refuse to make the cake?

This is like the gay marriage argument in that the people that are against it (something that is very topical in Australia at the moment) rely on religion to back up what is clearly a bigoted view of gay people. It's not about religion or the sanctity of the word marriage, it's about using it as an excuse to belittle someone. Are they so insecure in themselves that putting a symbol on a cake (which is not even remotely offensive) is going to impact them in any way shape or form. Give me a break.

I sat down with a christian couple for dinner the other day and the husband proceeded to abuse Mormons and other branches of christianity and utterly failed to see the irony of the situation. If your conviction in your religion is so damn weak that you feel the need to belittle someone else or judge someone else then that is your problem.

Ergo - bigoted and ignorant.

 

[jpod]

Is abusing/ridiculing Mormon's considered bad these days? I think Mormon's would be offended if there was no mirth directed their way. You would expect your faith to be tested right? And society ridicules bad ideas.

I guess a gay cake is like a normal cake just more fabulous.

I watched the Great British Bake off on the back of this thread. It rekindled my interest.

 

[dowie]

Really? I need to explain it?

The whole thread is dehumanising to a subsection of society based on their sexuality. I see attempts at conflating the issue by tying in religion and throwing out hyperbole to make the point when in actuality the issue is bigotry plain and simple. It's a freaking cake! Ask yourself why they have an issue with gay symbolism? Moreover ask yourself why they're using their religion as an excuse to refuse to make the cake?

This is like the gay marriage argument in that the people that are against it (something that is very topical in Australia at the moment) rely on religion to back up what is clearly a bigoted view of gay people. It's not about religion or the sanctity of the word marriage, it's about using it as an excuse to belittle someone. Are they so insecure in themselves that putting a symbol on a cake (which is not even remotely offensive) is going to impact them in any way shape or form. Give me a break.

Ergo - bigoted and ignorant.

you've still avoided directly citing any of the posts you're criticising as bigoted and ignorant which is the point i was making - just generalising about some vague posts that don't fit your view then calling them 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' is rather lazy

I think the ruling/law is (morally) wrong here and if you think that my argument is bigoted then I'd like you to explain why.

FYI They're happy to serve the people who ordered the cake usually, they're not happy to create this particular cake.

While I don't agree with the baker's views I think they're right to have those views, that isn't bigoted! It is not bigoted to state you think independent businesses shouldn't have to create products they don't approve of.

See muslim baker - mohammed cake/EDL against Islamic homophobia example for an illustration using something more people will likely agree is wrong.

 

[SteveOBHave]

you've still avoided directly citing any of the posts you're criticising as bigoted and ignorant which is the point i was making - just generalising about some vague posts that don't fit your view then calling them 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' is rather lazy

Rubbish, I'm talking about the whole discussion. It's an argument that should not have to be made. Ask yourself why someone would have the standpoint against homosexuals or anyone from an alternate sexuality when it has no effect on them whatsoever? What are you left with? Prejudice, plain and simple.

I think the ruling/law is (morally) wrong here and if you think that my argument is bigoted then I'd like you to explain why.

FYI They're happy to serve the people who ordered the cake usually, they're not happy to create this particular cake.

Again - why? What possible difference is it going to make to these peoples lives if they put a Queerspace symbol and Burt and Ernie on a cake? What moral outrage is it going to cause other than that they choose to take? What impact is what another couple do or feel for one-another ever going to have on them?

While I don't agree with the baker's views I think they're right to have those views, that isn't bigoted! It is not bigoted to state you think independent businesses shouldn't have to create products they don't approve of.

See muslim baker - mohammed cake/EDL against Islamic homophobia example for an illustration using something more people will likely agree is wrong.

They are a cake maker who create cakes with images on them. They were requested to make a cake that symbolises how those two people feel. What difference does it ultimately make to them?

I'm sorry but I don't buy the Mohammed cake or EDL cake argument - you're conflating the argument by throwing in more emotive perspectives. It's not a like for like argument.

 

[Angilion]

I think you don't know the bible at all if you think Jesus wrote any of it. All the passages that relate what jesus said are not him sitting down and writing it, they are first-hand accounts of his teaching or inspired prophecy by people like Paul.

Who wrote "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"?

I just typed those letters on my keyboard, so in that sense I wrote it. But in a much more important sense Winston Churchill wrote it.

For the same reason, I think that text claimed to be a direct quote of something said by Jesus is claimed to have been written by Jesus. Text written by Paul is not.

I've made it clear that the bible in theory is the word of God, all of it, it is therefore all God's and by extension Jesus teachings. By Paul teaching that homosexuality is still a sin as it ever was post the atonement, crucifixion and redirection of Christ it gives clear instruction that 'no homo' was never repealed, rescinded or fulfilled in the law. It's not difficult.

It's also not possible unless you think your god has severe multiple personality disorder and thus has different personalities and says contradictory things.

Large, complex and contradictry texts are usually only clear and simple to people who are cherry-picking interpretations of cherry-picked parts in order to use those texts as an appeal to authority to support their own position. The pick 'n' mix approach to old testament stuff is particularly good for that. This rule still applies, that one doesn't, those ones don't either but that one does...since there isn't any clear statement about which do and which don't, any selection can be chosen by anyone. Unless, of course, you believe that your bible is the word of your god, all of it. Including Matthew 5:17-18.

 

[dowie]

Again - why? What possible difference is it going to make to these peoples lives if they put a Queerspace symbol and Burt and Ernie on a cake? What moral outrage is it going to cause other than that they choose to take? What impact is what another couple do or feel for one-another ever going to have on them?

what difference does it make if a muslim draws mohammed on a cake?

They are a cake maker who create cakes with images on them. They were requested to make a cake that symbolises how those two people feel. What difference does it ultimately make to them?

I'm sorry but I don't buy the Mohammed cake or EDL cake argument - you're conflating the argument by throwing in more emotive perspectives. It's not a like for like argument.

Why do you think that?

Just to expand on the context there - my hypothetical was EDL Gay division wanting a cake to campaign against homophobia within Islam

I threw in the mohammed picture as an extra but my original question was with or without the picture.

How do you feel about a muslim baker having to make a cake for say the EDL? Or how about UKIP?

Obviously the message on the cake is again gay rights related.

Point is that businesses ought to be able to turn down requests to make things in support of political views/campaigns they disagree with. simply associating a political view with something protected such as sexuality, race etc.. shouldn't change that. The reasons why someone may not wish to support a political view aren't particularly relevant. You might well think the bakers are bigoted - maybe they are, maybe they have genuine religious opposition - it isn't relevant where their support/lack of support for particular political views comes from but simply that they ought to be free to turn down that sort of custom.

The point of the mohammed cake/EDL was to illustrate the principle using an example that more people could empathise with.

 

[Angilion]

Anyone who alleges that there are dodgey translations in the KJV are denigrating the extensive peer reviewed process it underwent by upwards 20 scholars and theologians who were recognised as the greatest minds of their day. Saying that they got it wrong or didn't understand how to translate properly would be equivalent to saying Stephen hawking is a moron.[..]

Now you're being very silly.

A small number of translators from the same society taught the same way with the same biases working on a text from an ancient society they know hardly anything about written in an almost dead language and writing it for the same organisation which had already decided what it wanted the translation to say, an organisation they were part of and devoted to, are not in a position to make a perfect translation. Nobody is, ever, but they were particularly badly placed to do so.

Stephen Hawking's work is obviously completely different because it's testable against objective reality. But even if any of it is wrong, that doesn't have any implications regarding his intelligence.

Your claimed equivalence is genuinely amusing.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
*thee*, *thou* and *ye*, these remind the reader or listener that they are in a poetic and eternal context, not reading Harry Potter or listening to the radio news.

Rubbish. Using a form of English that was a bit outdated even when the KJV was written doesn't make it "poetic and eternal". The same objection could be (and was) made against translating it into English at all. If you want "eternal" language, the least bad option is to stick to the original languages. Translating it to 16th century English is no more or less "eternal" than translating it to 21st century English.

 

[Tosno]

Rubbish. Using a form of English that was a bit outdated even when the KJV was written doesn't make it "poetic and eternal". The same objection could be (and was) made against translating it into English at all. If you want "eternal" language, the least bad option is to stick to the original languages. Translating it to 16th century English is no more or less "eternal" than translating it to 21st century English.

Rubbish.

 

[Akagi]

Sounds perfectly logical to me?

 

[Tosno]

I'm sure it does, you need to circle jerk after being humiliated last night

I wait for Angillion to finish his nocturnal replies and show you why tomorrow afternoon

 

[vincent1989]

No, that's complete nonsense.

I can see were unlikely to agree on this because we both agree that the respective translators of the bibles we don't prefer have objectives that may have influenced translation.

No, NA27 & NA28 are eclectic texts. They're not Alexandrian.

We're done here.

I said 'unless I'm mistaken'...I'm quite happy to be corrected, thanks for enlightening me.
Tell me, can I get a copy of this in English anywhere online, i've looked and can't seem to find? What does Romans 1 say?

Who wrote "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"?

I just typed those letters on my keyboard, so in that sense I wrote it. But in a much more important sense Winston Churchill wrote it.

For the same reason, I think that text claimed to be a direct quote of something said by Jesus is claimed to have been written by Jesus. Text written by Paul is not.

There are a number of scriptures that would disagree with you.

It's also not possible unless you think your god has severe multiple personality disorder and thus has different personalities and says contradictory things.

Large, complex and contradictry texts are usually only clear and simple to people who are cherry-picking interpretations of cherry-picked parts in order to use those texts as an appeal to authority to support their own position. The pick 'n' mix approach to old testament stuff is particularly good for that. This rule still applies, that one doesn't, those ones don't either but that one does...since there isn't any clear statement about which do and which don't, any selection can be chosen by anyone. Unless, of course, you believe that your bible is the word of your god, all of it. Including Matthew 5:17-18.

I've remained completely consistent on this point and made it as simple as possible but I'll repeat it again for you:

Oldest: no homo, mosaic law
Old: old law fulfilled
Not so old: no homo

I don't think that's irrational or contradictory unless you wilfully conflate the mosiac law with others of God's commandments. Presumably if you think the whole of the Law presented in the OT is fulfilled it's now fine to kill, commit adultery, worship false idols, steal and so on. But of course that's ridiculous.

Now you're being very silly.

A small number of translators from the same society taught the same way with the same biases working on a text from an ancient society they know hardly anything about written in an almost dead language and writing it for the same organisation which had already decided what it wanted the translation to say, an organisation they were part of and devoted to, are not in a position to make a perfect translation. Nobody is, ever, but they were particularly badly placed to do so.

Stephen Hawking's work is obviously completely different because it's testable against objective reality. But even if any of it is wrong, that doesn't have any implications regarding his intelligence.

Your claimed equivalence is genuinely amusing.

Who claimed it was perfect? You are denigrating people more brilliant than yourself, why do you seem to hold them to any higher standard than that of modern day scholars who arguably all have an agenda and are seeking to peddle their own politics and philosophies?

 

[dowie]

Can we get back to gay cakes instead of this gay bible talk please?

 

[Tosno]

Can we get back to gay cakes instead of this gay bible talk please?

Or incest cakes. Should we go there and get one made Uncle Dowie? If we win we get cake, if we lose we will be rich and gods among progressive liberals being 10 years above the curve.

Rubbish. Using a form of English that was a bit outdated even when the KJV was written doesn't make it "poetic and eternal". The same objection could be (and was) made against translating it into English at all. If you want "eternal" language, the least bad option is to stick to the original languages. Translating it to 16th century English is no more or less "eternal" than translating it to 21st century English.

Another of your rubbish anti-Christian opinions. Anglicans will know that the Authorised Version is poetic and eternal. Of course anti-Christians like yourself will *rubbish* it and say the Sid James Bible is no less eternal, because your agenda is the extirpation of this mighty cultural treasure, in the course of 50 years, has proceeded almost uninterrupted. Even celebrations of its 400th anniversary did not halt or reverse this process.

As to why, I think the answer can be found in the extraordinarily fierce and bilious anti-religious vituperation which from time to time appears on Overclockers from people like yourself, and is common elsewhere, and is also at work inside the churches, where many senior figures wish to dump what they regard as the baggage of a penitential and gloomy past.

We have now had 2 generations brought up to believe that nobody and nothing has the right to tell them what to do, or to restrict or restrain themselves - especially in what they regard as their private life.

And they can tell within minutes of encountering the Authorised Version of the Bible, that it is their enemy's weapon.