Why "Just bake the cake!" is wrong

[Vort]

Just now, MormonGator said:

But, what I'm also saying, and what I'm right about, is that they should bake the cake.

No, they should not. There is not the least moral nor ethical compulsion for them to do so. On the contrary, there is great moral reason for them to refuse to do any such thing, exactly as much as they have moral reason to refuse to bake and decorate a cake shaped like an aborted fetus so that a woman can celebrate the termination of her pregnancy.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

No, they should not.

 Okay, look, do whatever you want. When you are bankrupt because of legal fees and your house has been foreclosed-you can take great comfort in the fact that you can feel really good about yourself. Your kids can eat that, right? 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Okay, look, do whatever you want. When you are bankrupt because of legal fees and your house has been foreclosed-you can take great comfort in the fact that you can feel really good about yourself. Your kids can eat that, right? 

Do you not see the evil of such economic bullying? Do you truly believe that the best, most moral response to such a threat is to quietly acquiesce?

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Do you not see the evil of such economic bullying? Do you truly believe that the best, most moral response to such a threat is to quietly acquiesce?

This is the final time I'll address this. Bullying=forcing you. Telling you you should do something is a suggestion. You are free to ignore my suggestions. For the sixth time now I think you should have the right to say "Go away" and the government shouldn't force you. Six times now. Six times. I can't express it any other way.  I'm sorry. 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by MormonGator

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This is the final time I'll address this. Bullying=forcing you. Telling you you should do something is a suggestion. You are free to ignore my suggestions. For the sixth time now I think you should have the right to say "Go away" and the government shouldn't force you. Six times now. Six times. I can't express it any other way.  I'm sorry. 

You missed the point, MG. The economic bullying is done by those who go to great lengths to economically (and otherwise) destroy anyone who doesn't bake a homosexual couple a cake celebrating their special union. And you appear to be okay with that. I mean, as long as they're not holding a gun to people's heads to make them avoid your store, there is absolutely nothing wrong, morally or ethically, with them working hard to put you out of business because you don't want to bake them a ripped-apart-fetus cake celebrating their abortion or a homosexual-wedding cake to celebrate their so-called marriage or a Josef Mengele cake to celebrate his sacred birthday.

The best and most moral response to such evil is not "just bake them the cake". That's cowardice. At some point, anyone who cares about societal freedom has to be willing to take a stand and refuse to be bullied. You don't think compromising your morals about baking an overtly pro-homosexual-marriage cake is a hill worth dying on? Fine. But don't try to shame those who see such hateful bullying for what it is and who stand firm against such things.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

And you appear to be okay with that.

Where did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn't. Because that's what you think I believe, you are reading things into what I said that aren't there. 

Ironically, you are, to some degree, being manipulated by people you dislike/disagree with. You are giving a gay couple all the attention and making them martyrs by refusing to bake a cake for them. They become heroes, and they are playing you like a fiddle. You took their bait hook, line and sinker. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by MormonGator

[Vort]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Ironically, you are, to some degree, being manipulated by people you despise. You are giving a gay couple all the attention and making them martyrs by refusing to bake a cake for them. They become heroes, and they are playing you like a fiddle. 

They are heroes and martyrs only to those who, along with them, wish to impose their filthy lack-of-morality on society as a whole. I do not expect or even particularly want the support of such people. So the fact that they might idolize the perpetrators of intolerance and hatred who seek to close down a man's business because he wouldn't design their special cake for them represents no real loss at all.

[prisonchaplain]

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

But, what I'm also saying, and what I'm right about, is that they should bake the cake.

Why--especially in light of the fact that the same plaintiff asked the baker if he would bake a cake of Satan engaging in a pornographic act? I get that we sometimes satisfy customers who choose that which we would not. However, this was an individual seeking a lawsuit, attempting to legislate the doctrine that Christians can be made to support anti-Christian messaging. The plaintiff is driving for the judge to legislate from the bench and using Jack Philips as his humiliated religionist to get the job done. Kudos that you won't force him to do so, but why even counsel him to? Frankly, he should not.

[prisonchaplain]

41 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Okay, look, do whatever you want. When you are bankrupt because of legal fees and your house has been foreclosed-you can take great comfort in the fact that you can feel really good about yourself. Your kids can eat that, right? 

I know you would not deny your faith for economic security. Clearly such a demand is crossing the line. So...where would you make your stand? It's okay to bake a pro-gay marriage cake. Should he have baked one of Satan engaging in pornographic acts too? At what point should Baker Jack say NO?

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

but why even counsel him to?

Like I just said, two reasons. 

1- Practicality. Like you mentioned above, in the real world you need to feed your family and pay your bills. 
2-To avoid being their puppet. The more I think about it, the more I think I was dead on. The gay couple is manipulating the baker into playing their game and falling into their trap, and the baker wasn't wise/savvy enough to see the big picture. He did exactly what they wanted. Exactly. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

 Should he have baked one of Satan engaging in pornographic acts too? 

No. 

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

 At what point should Baker Jack say NO?

When common sense and wisdom tell him so. It's not all or nothing. 

Gotta run, virtual TKD class. 

[prisonchaplain]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

No. 

When common sense and wisdom tell him so. It's not all or nothing. 

Gotta run, virtual TKD class. 

We'll play when you get back.

I suspect common sense told Jack there was no way out of litigation. If he baked the celebrating my transition cake, the Satanic porn was coming. The plaintiff was indeed itching for a lawsuit. Jack didn't fall into his trap. He simply realized there was no way out. He would either litigate for his faith or compromise 100%. I suspect that he knew the same firms that did his case for free before would represent him again.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It is the mark of the beast.

• If you don't do what we want you to do and believe what we want you to believe, and bow down to the idolatrous god of materialism, abortion, moral depravity, & licentiousness,  then you shouldn't have the right to do business in America.
• If you don't have the mark in your hand (actions) and head (beliefs) then you cannot buy or sell here. 
  • Boycotts, lawsuits, shoutdowns on social media
  • Conservative public forums with specified formats for open dialogue with opposing points of interest are being overrun by liberals who simply want the conservatives to stop speaking.
• All of Hollywood can't make a blockbuster movie without some SJW theme anymore.

The mark of the beast is all around.  And you want us to just "bake the cake"?  It's more than just the cake.

At first I thought this was harsh. However, the more I meditate on this the more I agree. This PC bullying may not be the literal mark of the beast, but it most surely is the spirit of the mark. We are being groomed. Thanks for sharing this. The preacher might actually use it.

[prisonchaplain]

BTW, am I the only one who remembers the boycotts of the 1980s--conducting by the religious right of that era. Anything that was not "family friendly" was game for a boycott. Our forefathers were roundly criticized for attempting censorship. There was even a WKRP in Cincinnati episode on the topic. We came to realize that such efforts were foolhardy--that it was much better to win over individual hearts and mind. Sadly, our advisories did not learn our lessons.  

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

 We came to realize that such efforts were foolhardy

No they didn't. Because the right continued to protest in the 90's over numerous things too. Remember the Tipper Gore crusade to get the "Parental Advisory" sticker on albums that had questionable lyrics? That backfired-it told kids exactly where to go if they wanted to hear dirty words, and listening to those albums became taboo and a good way to break the rules. We just hid what music we were listening to from our parents. It's a little sad because horrible, talentless bands like 2 Live Crew and horrible comedians like Andrew Dice Clay wouldn't have gotten the attention. It was the best thing for their careers, sadly. They should have sent the Christian Coalition flowers every weekend.

And again, the right learned nothing. The left lays traps out for the right all the time, and the right stupidly stumbles into them. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

.

Edited April 24, 2020 by MormonGator

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

At first I thought this was harsh. However, the more I meditate on this the more I agree. This PC bullying may not be the literal mark of the beast, but it most surely is the spirit of the mark. We are being groomed. Thanks for sharing this. The preacher might actually use it.

Thank you.

I'd like to focus on the bolded phrase.

I do not say that what we're seeing is the beginning of the end. I'm also not saying it isn't.

I'm saying that there are some things that the devil does that don't change.  Some things do.  But there are some things that Satan is limited in his tools.  It may be that God is limiting him.  It may be that the tools he has used are already the best tools possible.

The tools for breaking down faithful societies have not changed.  They have been the same since scriptural times.  I believe what John the Revelator saw for his future was already part of history.  And it is no different today.  He keeps using the same tools again and again in every generation (eternal vigilance and all).

I had often wondered why we see the "signs of the times" so often and then we're almost "disappointed" or feel like someone has cried wolf too often to believe there is going to be an "End Times Scenario".  The signs keep coming.  No Second Coming.  Some fall away with loss of faith.

I don't think there was any crying wolf.  I think that the end could have come at any time in history as long as the people were not properly resisting the darkness.  The date isn't set.  That is why "no man knows the day nor the hour."  It will come just as soon as we lose vigilance; as soon as there are insufficient people blowing their horns; as soon as enough people bow down to the beast and the faithful eventually become powerless to stop them.  That could be this generation.  It could be the next.  It could be 20 generations from now.  There is no date.  There is a condition that needs to be satisfied.

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

BTW, am I the only one who remembers the boycotts of the 1980s--conducting by the religious right of that era. Anything that was not "family friendly" was game for a boycott. Our forefathers were roundly criticized for attempting censorship. There was even a WKRP in Cincinnati episode on the topic. We came to realize that such efforts were foolhardy--that it was much better to win over individual hearts and mind. Sadly, our advisories did not learn our lessons.  

I don't remember the WKRP episode you're speaking of.  But I'm guessing it's this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZP0Hn31HA0&list=PLbNMmuomfgHl8RBFWwnXlLvNLvL7jP6AJ&index=22 (BTW, Gordon Jump (the station manager) was LDS.)

Here's my take on boycotts.  I do not believe boycotts themselves are good or bad.  I think that sometimes, the cause which motivates the boycott could be evil, silly, meaningless, or noble.  I don't have a problem with some people raising awareness to boycott some things.  I believe it to be a free market tool for social justice reform.  And I encourage its use.  And I encourage businesses to make their decisions on whether to capitulate or to resist.  The battles will do what the battles do.

 

What is happening recently is not what we saw in the 80s.  The strategy is FIRST: boycott.  WHEN that fails use violent tactics -- often vandalism or bodily harm.  And that is what it's come down to.  Because I disagree with you, I can hit you and even kill you.  Not just put pressure on you, but completely destroy you.

Dan Crenshaw spoke of how it is all too easy to call someone a racist or a nazi when one feels their position is weakening.  But this is really a form of violence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik_kzn3etsE (start at around 3:13).

There is certainly a difference between massive gatherings of TEA Party folks vs. even the small gatherings of ANTIFA.  This is not a good environment for us to be in.

 

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

And again, the right learned nothing. The left lays traps out for the right all the time, and the right stupidly stumbles into them. 

So...we were slower to catch on than I hinted at. Still, either the left is being hypocritical, foolish, or @Carborendum is spot on.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

So...we were slower to catch on than I hinted at. Still, either the left is being hypocritical, foolish, or @Carborendum is spot on.

The left is misguided, intolerant of dissent (though, sadly, the right is inching towards that), and hypocritical. 

[JohnsonJones]

I think there are two things going on here.

First is equality and discrimination.  The second is artistic liberty and personal rights.

In the first, YES, a baker should not be able to discriminate on WHO they bake a cake for.  Just like any business that sells things to the public cannot discriminate against a specific race, gender, religion, etc.

They have to bake the cake.  It should be just like any other generic cake in the store.  Generic cakes (or tvs, or chairs, or tables) and such should not be able to be discriminated against in who they are sold to.

ON THE OTHERHAND...

If it is something with artistic intent, something that is NOT generic but requires personal involvement, personal ethics and morality come into play.  You should not be able to force an individual to make a pornographic film if it is against their wishes, even if they are a film maker.  You should not be able to make an artist make a picture, statue, or any other piece of art that denies them the basic human right of freedom of religion or expression. 

You cannot dictate to Van Gogh to paint a Rembrandt.  You cannot force Picasso to paint a Davinci.  They paint what they have as artistic expression.

If the canvas is a cake, rather than a canvas, or icing rather than stone, the principle still applies.  You cannot force a cake maker to make a personal piece of art (even if it is just a cake) that denies them their basic rights of expression (and even more, religion) or thought.

The first item (above at the beginning of my post) is a generic item that should be available to all.  It is common enough that there are hundreds (if not thousands or millions) made and are not made to be a specific expression of individuality or personal feelings.  The latter (the...on the otherhand) is something identifiable to the artist or creator themselves.  To try to define what an artist has to make (rather than their choice) can be seen as trying to define what an individual has to be and think, rather than allow them to create freely.  One is okay, the other is not.

In my opinion.

Edited April 24, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[Colirio]

13 hours ago, MormonGator said:

No they didn't. Because the right continued to protest in the 90's over numerous things too. Remember the Tipper Gore crusade to get the "Parental Advisory" sticker on albums that had questionable lyrics? 

Wait... 

Tipper Gore is part of the religious right? 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Wait... 

Tipper Gore is part of the religious right? 

 

Was. Big time. She lead the “we’ve got to save our kids” crusade in the early 90s/late 80’s. The right forgets this because her husband moved so far left and the left forgives her because her husband moved so far left. 

 

Ex husband now. 

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Wait... 

Tipper Gore is part of the religious right? 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

[Guest MormonGator]

If the baker was a little smarter, he would have baked the cake, took their money and donated it to a conservative group advocating for values he agreed with. 

[Colirio]

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

 

Oh, I remember. 
 

What I don’t remember is Tipper Gore ever being considered part of the “right.” 
 

Religious?  🤔 Sure. Why not? 
 

Right? 🤨 



That being said, having grown up in the Bible Belt, I have witnessed all manner of outlandish claims and boycotts. My favorite one was when everyone was boycotting Tide (yes, the laundry detergent) because a percentage of their profits went to “support devil worshipping.” I am not making that up. Being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pretty much made me an outcast from day one.