BaptistLife.Com Forums.

It already is a cause celebre and so without my help.

If you read the florist and baker stories, what in them would not have either anti-gay marriage businesspeople following the golden rule?

In all of this, there seems to be the strange insistence that the First Amendment applies to all entities regarding religion and speech. The First only indicates what GOVERNMENT cannot do vis-a-vis religion and speech. Private entities—practically across the board regarding ALL activities—are not susceptible to the constraints of this amendment. For this reason, employers can require certain constraints such as regarding clothing worn, acceptable speech on any subject, non-use of drugs (even for religious purposes), uniforms (as at McDonald's), tattoos (not allowed a while back for state-park workers in Ky. if visible to the public), etc., whether those affected like it or not. The Court's Hobby-Lobby decision is instructive. The government will do well to stay out of businesses like those CREATING goods or services on the basis of their religious beliefs. Citizens can decide which businesses to support on the basis of their religion-stances (both individuals and businesses) and not on the basis of the First Amendment, which has only to do with what government cannot do.

I get what William is saying about the Nazi symbol on a cake. But wedding cakes most of the time are identical for same sex couples or traditional couples. Seldom do wedding cakes I see at receptions have words on them or symbols on them. They are just a nice cake with white icing. It is pretty tough to come up with much of a real objection to baking a cake based on use if the cake looks like every other wedding cake you make for any other couple.

Actually, wedding cakes often have a little statuary on top, depicting a courting,

dancing,

or kissing couple.

One of the couple is usually obviously male, the other obviously female, though the obviousness is superficial; rarely do their genitalia show.

Occasionally the couple is obviously not even human. I didn't know ursines went in for lavish nuptials...

According to this report, the Supreme Court will start hearing arguments in one of "cake baking" cases tomorrow.

The supporters of the same-sex couple are careful to only speak of baking a cake, while the supporters of the baker are careful to speak of art and expression.

The keynote speaker for the Bama Baptists this year in Huntsville. HE DID NOT KNOW WHO GEORGE W. TRUETT WAS. he interrupted me several times in a chat about what was supposed to be cakes but I engineered, or attempted to show his wider ignorance on church state issues.

I invited him to call Cherilynne Crowe a product of the FBC Ft Payne, Alabama after Bobby Welch( "We got liberals what we gonna do about it," pastors conference 1984 Wednesday afternoon SBC) left Vietnam and Bama; I invited Burgess to give this NE Bama product of Samford and Vanderbilt a call at bjconline.org.

A week before the senate election in Bama, Bama baps display their ignorance for the world!!!

As long as the church remains quiet when the government defines "church" as an organization instead of a people (which the Bible would support), the government is not able to see how Christian people cannot be something other than the church. Now they can be disobedient or obedient. I see the Bakers and Florists as wanting to be business people, obedient to God first.

Then again, the church needs to understand this also. It seems many don't.

The narrow legal issue is this:

Did the cake baker violate Colorado state law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation? Not all states have the same laws, but Colorado includes that category on their books. I think he clearly did violate that law.

The Court's ruling will probably address a wider issue than that, but that's what started it all.

I don't think there is any question that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated Colorado's public accommodations law. The question SCOTUS has to resolve, it seems to me, is what Leland states. They will decide on the tension between that Colorado law and the Constitution's freedom of religion and expression.

This all leads to all kinds of murky discussions for the court as to when a business owner can refuse people service based on a personal religious view. Usually people have religions, businesses don’t.

I can think of all kinds of problems and cans of worms opened if they allow that the baker can refuse the couple that go far beyond the LGBT issue. Can a business owner really only have customers that match their religious values and still be a legitimate public business in the US? What mess do we open up if we allow for that? I hope the court thinks very carefully about how wide the effect of the ruling is.

What if the baker doesn’t think divorced people should remarry? What if they don’t think mixed race couples should marry?

The most common answer I get is, “go to another cake baker.” For folks who live in big cities, that really easy. For a lot of people in small town America, not so easy. I know people in Nebraska that would have to drive 50 miles or more one way to the next baker for a cake.

It’s a mess.

The whole field is murky. I await with interest SCOTUS's take on how to enlighten things.