Some Questions About the Gay Cake

By now, everyone’s aware of the latest culture war click-frenzy, which we can all officially dub Arizona Cakegate, regarding a bill in the Grand Canyon State that gives business owners (especially those of the wedding cake or crappy DJ variety) the overt right to deny service to gay couples.

And we’re all aware of the predictable response from conservative Christian culture warriors, to the tune of chalking up wins for religious freedom if the bill should survive veto (despite sensible counterpoints from moderate Christian voices).

But I have some questions, you guys.

First, who is discriminating against who? While on the surface it appears reasonable at first to see all kinds of freedom from discrimination for conservative Christians who refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, doesn’t this come dangerously close to fostering the same old discrimination of pre-civil rights era America? In other words, are we free to discriminate on the basis of identity alone when doing business in the secular for-profit sector? To be sure, by their very nature a nonprofit church or synagogue or mosque is dedicated to particular religious work that upholds spiritual and moral principles not accepted by everyone – thus they inherently are not mandated to serve everyone. This is why the nonprofit category exists in the law code. But where would you draw the line with a for-profit business that claims to be owned and operated by Christians? Can Chik-Fil-A refuse to sell sandwiches to guys who appear gay in the ordering line? Can a local diner declare itself to be a gay-free zone without engendering hostility in the community that would endanger honest, good citizens only on the basis of their identity and orientation? Isn’t that the same as the old “separate but equal” principle?

Second, does the logic really work? There have been no shortage of scenarios and slippery slopes offered up by conservatives about where “mandatory service” to gay people will logically lead us. But does it all really make sense? My personal favorite was a pastor who argued on Twitter that a Jewish shop owner should not have to bake a cake for a Klan rally. The comparison of a gay person to to a member of the KKK is obviously offensive, but it is even more ironic: if anything, the roles should be reversed. The question would be, can a KKK member run a cake shop that refuses to serve gay people, black people, Jewish people, minority allies, etc., without at least bringing issues of discrimination, fair business, and safety to the forefront of the community’s attention? If the issue is that we just don’t want the law to get involved and let the free market sort it all out, is that really a world we want to live in (e.g., Russia? Uganda?), where it’s legal to discriminate in a for-profit business on the basis of identity alone, creating a hostile atmosphere in the community? Didn’t conservatives praise Rudy Giuliani when he zoned out all the sex shops in Times Square? I know I did. Sometimes superficial libertarian logic results in hostility, danger, and oppression toward real people, as it certainly did under separate but equal doctrine in the old days. And the law needs to line up with what’s actually fair.

Third, how is any of this actually Christian? I recently read in Exodus (of all places) how the ancient Israelites were commanded – commanded! – to treat foreigners well. Now, sure, if an Israelite worshiped a foreign god they should be killed on the spot. But God through Moses specifically said, “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” Boom. Simple. Don’t do anything to oppress or deny fair treatment to those whose worship, lifestyle, custom, and creed is foreign to you. Jesus of course took this way further – his whole ministry was about flipping the idea of who is welcome at God’s table (where the cake is, usually), so that the outsiders were in and the insiders were out. For this reason, we are to love our neighbor, and our neighbor is anyone in need (or who may be requiring our service). Don’t mistreat or oppress the foreigner, the culturally different, the neighbor from that other tribe, the outsider. Do not. It’s a command.

I might have answered that last question myself!

But really, what do you think about all this? What are your answers to these questions? 

Because the more I think about it, the more I realize that if I was the one on the outside, walking into a shop to be served (or maybe laying half dead on the side of the road), I would want my gay brother or sister to help me…like a good Samaritan should.

**UPDATE: Veto!

Love Fierce as the Grave…and Better than Death With Dignity
On Leaving the Patheos Progressive Christian Channel
Sunday Feeds and Reads: Abusers, Grooming, and Innocence Doctrine
Hard To Kill: More on the Mega-Multisite Church from Ruth Graham
About Zach Hoag

Zach J. Hoag is a writer and missional minister from notoriously non-religious New England. He blogs here at Patheos and HuffPost Religion. His book, Nothing but the Blood: The Gospel According to Dexter, released in 2012. Most importantly he binge-watches TV dramas and plays in the snow with his family.

Find him on Twitter & Facebook!

  • jaredcwilson

    Yes, yes, the “logic” always works when the ones we don’t like are the ones being restricted. I used the “klan rally” example not b/c I wanted to equate gay weddings with klan rallies but a more sympathetic subject of compulsion — a Jewish baker — than an evangelical one. The racial component was my poor choice, although of course the person I was trying to dialogue with was the first to introduce it in comparing evangelicals concerned about violation of religious liberty to those who supported Jim Crow. (As I said, the logic always makes sense when the ones we don’t like are analogous to the bad guys.) So let me try it another way: I personally would not support the legal compulsion of a gay baker to provide a cake (or whatever) for Westboro Baptist. Or any other religious group/party they find conscience-violating offensive. Like even me, for instance. I do not have the right to compel, using governmental authority or not, a gay person or any other person to take my money if doing so would seem unduly discriminatory to them.

    I also think the way of Christ would be that Christians should bake as many cakes for gay persons as are requested. It’s the *wedding cake* in celebration of a same-sex ceremony that should be objected to. But I know that’s a “nuance” conveniently avoided in deference to the talking points.

    Glad my tweet was your fave out of all of them.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    That was fast! I’m not sure how you found my post since you don’t follow me on Twitter and unfriended me on Facebook ages ago. But here we are. Found your tweet (my favorite indeed) since I follow Jonathan.

    Look, we both have some logic, the question is which seems more just and fair and that’s up for readers (and beyond that, the general public, legislators, etc.) to decide. Obviously I like my logic better than yours. Obviously you like yours better than mine. No need for pretense there.

    Again, my argument is that your logic fails because of a false analogy (doubtless you disagree since you don’t like the ones being restricted). You made another one here – a gay baker refusing service to an obviously hate-driven, intolerant, borderline dangerous group (which, frankly, I think the law should be doing much more to restrict) does not equate to a Christian refusing to serve a gay couple (who have shown no hate and posed no danger toward the baker). False analogy. In a case in which the safety of the businessperson is in question or there is a tangible disruption or risk, obviously there should be every freedom to refuse. But its odd to me that the discriminatory practice (refusing gay people service) keeps getting compared to victims of discrimination (Jewish people, gay people, etc.). It doesn’t fit.

    I’m glad to hear that you would serve gay people, but you know the bill, and the conservative energy behind it, doesn’t stop at weddings. And, I think Jonathan and Kirsten sufficiently showed why stopping at weddings doesn’t make any sense theologically, ecclesially, ethically, etc., considering all the people and situations a typical business (often knowingly) serves daily.

  • jaredcwilson

    I think Jonathan and Kirsten sufficiently showed why stopping at
    weddings doesn’t make any sense theologically, ecclesially, ethically,
    etc.,

    Well, I know you do. But there are thoughtful Christians who disagree (obviously). The difference still comes down to where we think the government ought to bring its authority to bear. It *appears* — and if I’m wrong on this, please correct me — that you would agree the law ought to compel me to conform to your logical conclusions (according to your theology, ecclesiology, ethos, or what-have-you). In my view, I would not want the government to compel you to conform to mine.

    Thanks for the opportunity to reply.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    Dude, you’re free to comment at will.

    Here’s the disconnect. You DO want the government to compel someone to conform to your logic: gay people! So if I was gay, then yes, I would be forced to conform to your logical conclusions. The issue is not one of compulsion or the lack thereof; the issue is one of legal fairness. Thankfully, the veto will make the world a little more hospitable to the only ones who had anything substantial (safety, opportunity, access) to lose in this situation. And as far as I know, there’s still no bill forcing anyone to go into the wedding business.

    But I’m actually interested: Do you see any applications of the Good Samaritan story in this situation?

  • http://beingperfectlyhuman.blogspot.com/ Eric Fry

    I can’t understand why anyone that claims to be a Christian thinks they need a law to protect them in not extending the same grace of which they claim to partake. Perhaps it’s because they don’t think that they were ever a sinner to begin with.

  • Jenn Baerg

    For myself I see it as adjacent to arguing that we should not bake a cake for atheists, divorcees or interracial couples, if gay marriage is against scripture than why not the others? After all our (unfortunate) faith tradition has been prejudice against those couples.

    That being said, I do not agree with any form of prejudice and I am more than happy to bake a cake for anyone in my life who needs one and does not find the respect and the support they should receive in that wonderful time.

  • toddh

    A lot of energy is being expended in worrying over businesses not being able to discriminate in who they provide services for. One comment that made sense to me pointed out that these businesses are all state-licensed. That means they have to play by the state’s rules. If the state is not allowed to discriminate, then neither are they.

  • James M

    “My personal favorite was a pastor who argued on Twitter that a Jewish shop owner should not have to bake a cake for a Klan rally. The comparison of a gay person to to a member of the KKK is obviously offensive, but it is even more ironic: if anything, the roles should be reversed.”

    ## I’m surprised this comparison is taken as comparing someone gay to a member of the KKK. The comparison would seem to be limited to making the – surely not unreasonable ? – point that a member of group A should not have to provide service B for a member of group C, given that members of group C are antagonistic to group A;
    - and that, by parity of reasoning, service X should not have to be provided for members of group Y by members of group Z: given that members of group Z may have conscientious objections to providing service X for members of said group.

    The issue of discrimination is not the only one in the mix, even if – sociologically or legally – it is the most obvious one.

    One reasons such objections seem likely to arise is this: a Christian shop owner may reckon that, by providing a cake for a gay wedding, he or she is supporting something to which he or she has conscientious & principled objections. For this reason: This prompts the question: at what point does providing a service to society, become conniving in something bad ? In one form this pops ups all the time. It’s the reason Israeli oranges are boycotted, & that Catholic politicians are refused the Eucharist, & that Churches worry about whether they are investing stocks in armaments firms.

    For Christians at least (how it plays for Jews IDK so it would be presumptuous of this poster to comment) this issue of connivance bites because of the NT call to be “holy in everything you do” (as St.Paul says). So even providing a wedding-cake can become an issue of conscience. One of the reasons it is an issue of conscience, is that Christians are so involved in the wider society – ISTM that that the only solution may be for Christians to stay w/in society, but w/o having any social entanglements in it: IOW, a solution fairly like that of the Amish. To put it another way, this would approximate to the state of the Church in 200 or so, and before. (Such a solution might also have the good side-effect of cleaning the Church a bit: if to profess Christianity comes to have no social or economic advantages, so much the better.)

  • James M

    Avoiding nuances that are part of the logic of an argument, simply causes confusion. OTOH, it seems to be getting harder & harder to say anything without someone somewhere’s taking offence :( I believe this is what is known as a “”no-win” situation”.

  • http://www.faithmeetsworld.com/ Rob Grayson

    I’m tracking with you, Zach. While I can’t say I’m over the moon about the same-sex marriage legislation here in the UK, it seems absolutely clear to me that any attempt to discriminate (including by withholding service) on the basis of sexual orientation is anti-Christian. (I blogged about this a few months ago here: http://www.faithmeetsworld.com/christians-and-same-sex-marriage-or-christian-shut-up-and-love/).

    I have a hunch that many of those pushing for the ability to withhold service from gay couples steadfastly see homosexuality as purely a free choice, rather than as an orientation that a person may be born with, or may come to “acquire” in the absence of any conscious choice on their part. If you see homosexuality as a wilful but misguided choice (like the choice to join the KKK…), it’s much easier to justify discrimination against that choice.

  • Barbara

    If you see homosexuality as a wilful but misguided choice (like the choice to join the KKK…), it’s much easier to justify discrimination against that choice.

    First of all, love for another human being is not like joining the KKK; the comparison’s odious.

    Second: why is it OK to discriminate against another person for private behavior that’s bothering nobody else anyway?

  • JJ

    The brunt of my argument all week long (which runs along the same lines as you) is love your neighbor. Jesus boiled Christianity down to two commands: Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. I grow extremely weary of the countless Christians who seem to be touting conservative talking points (laced with Christianese) in their defense of “religious freedom”, as if that’s the basis of Christianity. And all I ask is, in the midst of all that “freedom”, are you loving your neighbor? Sure, you’re free to serve who you want. But is that loving your neighbor? Is any gay, straight, black, or white person who doesn’t know Jesus going to want to run into His arms after being told in your store that you can’t serve them because you can’t support their lifestyle on Biblical grounds? I’m sure they’ll be running to church the next Sunday to sign up.

    Kirsten retweet my support of her, in which I asked what these Christians would do if they were refused service because they were Christians. I can’t count how many Christians responded to that either questioning my faith, or saying, “they would just go elsewhere, like anyone would.” Oh really? You don’t think they would make a big fuss about persecution or discrimination? Some will take it on the chin (or cheek), say God bless you and leave (as they should). But some will make a stink. They can’t have it both ways.

    Most of these people defending the right to discriminate would likely fall into that category of people that Jesus confronted and lectured during his ministry (aka: Pharisees). They wanted to obey the law, but weren’t loving people (and killed a man they were threatened by). The people being discriminated would probably have him over for dinner, and he would go, speaking truth to them in love while they talked about the weather, and probably enjoying each others company. Sign me up for dinner. I’ll bring chips.

  • Barbara

    If anybody wants to know why the anti-gay argument has failed so spectacularly and so quickly, all they have to do is take a look at this comment.

    Here we have the (apparently completely serious) argument that bakers’ “consciences” are being violated by making cakes for people who order them. We also have the notion that plain cakes are OK – but “wedding cakes” are completely out of the question and “should be objected to.”

    We have the direct comparison between two people committing to care for one another – and an insane hate-based organization that pickets the funerals of soldiers who die in battle and of others who die tragically.

    I just love you guys! Over the years, you’ve been absolutely the best friends any gay rights organization could ever have – and we really, really appreciate it…..

  • http://www.faithmeetsworld.com/ Rob Grayson

    Um, did you perhaps misread my post? I agree with you. I was just trying to get inside the heads of those who are staunchly in favour of this type of discrimination. I don’t think it’s justifiable for one moment.

  • jaredcwilson

    You DO want the government to compel someone to conform to your logic:
    gay people! So if I was gay, then yes, I would be forced to conform to
    your logical conclusions.

    No, I want gay persons to be free to boycott or refuse to give business to or otherwise raise a stink about somebody who wouldn’t take their money. And I want them to be free not to do so, if they prefer. I want the government *out of it.*

    You say “the issue is not one of compulsion,” but we wouldn’t be having this conversation (probably) if it wasn’t. You say “it’s an issue of legal fairness.” Well, as soon as you say “legal,” you’re acknowledging the compulsion. Because this mess hit the public fan when a gay couple sued a wedding cake maker, bringing the legalities in to compel the baker to violate their conscience. As in Vermont, where a gay couple’s legal maneuvering resulted in Christian innkeepers being fined. The issue very much is one of compulsion.

    As far as I know, there’s no law forcing gay couples to only use bigoted wedding services.

    In my view, we should let private business owners be free to sabotage their own businesses through their discriminatory practices. Nobody will die if they can’t get a wedding cake (or a photo or a business card or whatever) from their provider of first choice.

    And in my view, no law should prohibit a sign-making business owner who is gay from telling the Westboro guy ordering some placards for the latest protest to go to hell. In your view, logically speaking, since there’s no bill forcing anyone to go into the sign-making business, the owner could not legally decline the business. Right? Because that’s “legal fairness.” You shouldn’t be able to discriminate against anybody, no matter how justified you think your reasons for doing so are.

    That’s *my* issue. If a Christian wants to make wedding cakes for gay folks, let him. I’m only saying the law shouldn’t require him to do so.

  • Barbara

    I’m asking a real question: why is it OK to discriminate against another person on the basis of something that doesn’t affect anybody negatively, let alone the “discriminator”?

    I mean, how is that justifiable in anybody’s head at all?

  • http://www.faithmeetsworld.com/ Rob Grayson

    Beats me…

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    Jared my point around “compulsion” is that *both* your and my positions require some kind of “compulsion.” Denying service to someone on the basis of their identity (forcing them to go elsewhere) is *at least* as compulsory as requiring for-profit business owners to not discriminate on the basis of identity.

    A signmaker asked to make overtly profane and hateful signs by a fundamentally unsafe group is, like your KKK example, a false analogy. My argument is not based on libertarian logic about compulsion, but justice, fairness, and safety in the eyes of the law code.

    Good Samaritan?

  • Liadan

    Do they put *all* their clients through a ‘sin litmus test,’ or just discriminate against gays?

  • http://geekchicohio.blogspot.com Adam Heffelfinger

    If I may:
    There’s some truth to the fact that the consumer has some agency, and that IS where SOME parallel arguments fall apart. Of course it’s absurd for a thinking person to go to a halal deli and demand a non-halal meal.
    But the idea of consumer choice being the thing that makes these kinds of legislation “okay” is also odious. If there’s ONE bakery in town, and I have to spend significant additional time, money, and resources going way out of the way to fulfill a service that I’m being denied just because the baker in question doesn’t want to “affirm” me.
    I didn’t ask for his affirmation, I asked for a cake. I was even planning on paying for it.

  • http://sheazellweger.blogspot.com/ Shea Zellweger

    If the comparison boils down simply to ‘Anyone should be able to refuse service on moral or ethical grounds,’ then the KKK analogy works. But this space is not ‘The Absolutes by Zach Hoag,’ it’s ‘The Nuance.’ Pretty big difference.

    The Civil Rights Act prevents anyone from refusing to provide a service on the basis of (among other things) religious reasons.”I refuse to make a wedding cake for gay people because I am a Christian/TheBible Says so” is the very definition of religious reasons.

    The Civil Rights Act does NOT prevent anyone from refusing to provide a service for any reason, ever. There are a whole host of reasons for refusing service, up to and including ‘I don’t feel like it.’ You can, in fact, refuse to create any materials which engender prejudice, discrimination, or hatred toward another group. You can also choose to create those materials. You can even be selective about which hateful materials you will or will not create.

    It seems to me that this particular nuance has existed for some 50 years, and the idea that people do not see the difference between the two, either in theory or in practice, is problematic. The question has never been ‘do I have the right to refuse service?’ it has always been ‘what are the grounds upon which I can refuse service?’ and the answer there is pretty simple: You, as a for-profit business, can serve or not serve whomever you choose, so long as you do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, nationality, or physical/mental capability. Saying no to a gay wedding is clearly in violation of that statue. Saying no to the KKK is not.

  • Liadan

    Do they bake baby shower cakes for unmarried women? Is a wedding cake for “Kim and Leslie” a gay cake or straight? Are those Valentine tidbits promoting illicit fornication? If gays are sinners, then they are committing two sins…gay sex, sex without marriage. At least a gay marriage would eliminate one of those sins. Why not promote the elimination of one sin then? How is a refusal to provide services to a group of people showing the fruit of Christian spirit? Does it show love, kindness, compassion? No? Then maybe your actions aren’t Christian.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    Thanks for that perspective Shea. This is why the “logic” of these libertarian arguments fails at the point of application (and why they must resort to extreme false analogies) – the law has long been seeking to establish fairness in for-profit business and non-discrimination laws are there to protect real people from real mistreatment.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    Right on. And a bill that specifically empowers businesses to discriminate based on a person’s identity alone IS coercive toward that person per definition. It’s NOT the absence of coercion. In your deli example, the “discrimination” is based on a service clearly not provided to *anyone*. In this example, it’s denying services provided to everyone else *except* the person who is gay, who is excluded on the basis of gayness alone.

  • R Vogel

    It is hardly avoided, it is the central issue. The issue is how far someone can extend their religious belief to justify discriminating against someone else. If you honestly believe that you bear some hand in how a cake you make for a customer is used, then I would think you would have to do more due diligence on all of your cake orders to avoid falling into sin or whatever. Or it is only applicable when they made it easy for you and told you? If one member of a gay couple comes in and orders a wedding cake, and never discloses that they are same sex, and the baker makes the cake for them, does she bear any responsibility? And how does this extend to employees? If I work in a bakery shop that sell to everyone and I am asked to make a cake for a gay wedding am I within my right to refuse? Would my employer be violating my religious liberties to order me to do so? Sorry gang, the world has changed. You now have to serve black people, allow Jews into your country clubs, and now acknowledge gay weddings. if you advertise that you make cakes for weddings, you have to make wedding cakes for everyone, not just the people you like. If your religion doesn’t allow you to do that, then maybe you should focus on cupcakes or scones.

  • Brian Hager

    Let me join in by first saying that I don’t support oppression where it exists. But since you have brought in Scripture, let me respond biblically. Your invocation of the OT is eisogesis. You have implied that the best passage in the OT to deal with it was the one you used which has nothing to do with sexual orientation but nationality. What you did not do is appeal to any passage, Old or New Testament that deals directly with same sex issues. The intellectually honest thing to do is to appeal to passages that apply directly, not selectively drag in others that are a stretch.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    Actually Brian, it’s far less intellectually honest for you to assert that issues of hospitality to foreigners, Gentiles, and “sinners” throughout scripture would not entail matters of sexuality unacceptable to the Israelite religious community. Because they most certainly did (sexuality being a central part of cultic worship in many cases). It’s pretty apparent that Samaritans were spurned by the religious community for both their loose spirituality and loose sexuality. And yet the Samaritan is the hero for serving the man in need, as the pious men passed him by.

  • Brian Hager

    So that single verse is the chair passage on Gods view of sexuality and how to approach it? Can you please discuss other OT passages on the topic of how to approach sexuality?

  • Jenn Baerg

    Brian I feel like you have a specific passage in mind with these questions, but given you haven’t revealed it yet, I would actually look to how women are treated with regards to their sexuality in the OT, considering their social context state that our call is one of compassion and respect. Women who delivered female children who were considered a social burden were given extra time with their female child before their husband could come to them. The societal norm would be to try for a male child as soon as possible, but God sets out the opposite. This is just one case, but the provisions were set out not to support men or those with power, as they could make any decision they wanted, but rather sided with those who would not have social/political/religious standing. Considering the whole of the OT and NT the question still stands, how do our actions represent care for our neighbour or even the “least of these”?

  • NCHammer

    Zach, I am trying to fully understand your position both practically and more importantly, Biblicly. What, if any, developments, pursuits or demands by the pro-homosexual side of this debate would be “a bridge too far” for you? Can you provide some examples, even if hypothetical, that would cause you to take pause and, perhaps, say “enough” or “that’s more than I am prepared to agree to” as a matter of principle and/or faith? Thanks.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    No, that single verse forms the bedrock of Jesus’s table/hospitality politics. As a Christian, it’s Jesus I’m mainly concerned with when it comes to the Israelite tradition.

    So, Good Samaritan?

  • Brian Hager

    The issue of our time is summed up in the statement “one sin is no worse than another”. That over simplistic statement (while simplistically true) should be replaced with “all sins are equally worst”. The idea of “loving one’s neighbor” is to help them in a time of need, however simply baking a cake is not loving them. I can walk into a local bakery today and buy a cake that has no love attached. Loving someone with a cake would include me declaring the holiness of God, the horrific nature of our sin and the consequences of it and the cure found in Jesus. Handing someone a cake isn’t love, the Gospel is the greatest love (in this context).

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    The Samaritan “knew not what he worshiped” and loved his neighbor by helping him and dressing his wounds. Loving someone by baking them a cake is most definitely possible, without any “gospel” talk, especially if the person is an outsider to the religious community or oppressed in any way. Gestures of kindness toward outsiders are the meaning of loving one’s neighbor, and the very essence of Jesus’s table politics and the Good Samaritan story itself. Go and learn what this means.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship Censored

    > I would not want the government to compel you to conform to mine.

    So are you against private property? Government compulsion is the basis of creating property borders on the surface of the earth, and redistributing the earth’s surface via “Title.” And my bet is that you want the government to bring its authority to bear on anybody trying to be an Indian, hunting and gathering their food off your land, and compel them to conform to your conclusion that it is “your” land.

  • lmalone

    Are you guys sure you want to regulate the free markets this way? Why not let the jerks lose profits on customers by discriminating?
    We are not talking about government or hospital care discrimination. We are talking about the free marketplace where jerks can own businesses and even choose customers if they can do that and stay in business.
    How is your stance any different than the conservative evangelicals you dread wanting to micromanage our lives in another direction? Please think it through. Government regulation is not the answer. There will always be jerks in the marketplace but forcing them to serve customers they dislike for whatever reason is going to do what? For whom?
    I have a friend who cannot buy bras in Victoria Secret because of her weight and they don’t have her large size. She is being discriminated against because she is not skinny model material. She has threatened to sue for discrimination and she relates to the gay guys who just wanted a cake for their wedding. She just wants a nice VS bra. . Makes sense, right? Victoria Secret does not like fat chics. That is unfair. We need a some government regulation sicced on them.

  • http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Curt Day

    I lost a lot of readers on my blog because I supported what Powers and Merritt wrote. I attribute a lot of this discrimination to the fact that we are so personally holiness minded that we are unable to love our neighbor. That is because the more personal holiness minded we are, the more inward and even hyper-vigilant about our spiritual state we become. And the more inward we become, the less we can be aware of our neighbor.

  • Jeremy Steele

    So good as usual. No way is this Christian and as far as I can tell biblically, we are missing some WAY BIGGER THINGS: http://jeremywords.com/blog/2014/2/26/the-little-sin-that-became-mainstream

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    sorry for missing this comment before. that feels like a broad question – when it comes to matters of legal equality, i don’t see any bridge too far at this point.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    Curt, great contrast.

  • http://zhoag.com/ zhoag

    thanks jeremy :)

  • Lauren

    Exactly. It is very sad to think that Christians are denying gays, we should be welcoming them, and we should be sharing the gospel with them. Refusing to bake a gay couple will not convict them nor wil it turn them to Jesus, it will do the exact opposite!!! Withou Jesus, we wil all die in our sins. If they were straight, and yet not followers of Christ, they would still be unsaved. What is th difference? We don’t deny cakes to selfish people do we? Which is just as sinful and will lead you to eternal death just like homosexuality will. Without Jesus, we have no hope. Because even if wefollowed God’s law, if we deny Jesus we will never be saved. No matter how perfect you try to be. If one is blind, they cannot be forced to see. Jesus must open his eyes first.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X