Will Ashers Make Me A Cake…? A Sinful Post

A thought experiment…

 

I woke up yesterday with a bit of a hangover, I had a lot to drink the night before and was fairly drunk (SIN), I was at a friends partying (SIN) for their birthday. We played a drinking game, you might have heard of it, truth or dare? I was asked when I lost my virginity, I said 16 when it was actually 15 (SIN).  To be honest, we were doing some fairly weird shots, one of them…I don’t even know what it was, but 5 of us drank them, the other 4 threw up straight away but I kept it down, I was really quite drunkenly proud (SIN). Anyway, yesterday morning I needed 1 thing…an Ulster Fry, so I went to a café and ordered the biggest, meatiest, greasiest fry they sold, it. Was. Amazing. The bacon was perfectly crispy (SIN), I particularly love the crispy fat on the edges (SIN), but the café also did black pudding (SIN) which, I know some people dislike, but if it’s cooked right, it’s delicious.

After breakfast, I went to church, I was suffering and I really needed divine intervention to take the hangover away! To be honest, it was a bit touch and go at communion, drinking the wine in church (SIN) wasn’t what the doctor ordered, an old teacher of mine from primary school, Mrs Watson gave a very powerful reading from psalms (SIN), she had a baby boy 3 weeks ago and still felt up for going to church (SIN), her sister was with her too, she used to teach in the same school and funnily enough she had a baby girl 6 weeks ago (SIN).

I felt a bit of a shambles, I was still wearing clothes from the night before, I hadn’t even had a chance to have a shower, I looked like a mess in church (SIN). After church I sat in the park outside to get some fresh air, I brought a banana with me for some potassium, I heard it was good for hangovers, would you believe it but I’m sitting there minding my own business and eating my banana when a seagull landed next to me and started snapping to get my banana, I shoved it away (SIN). After I’d shooed the seagull away I decided I needed to straighten up a bit before I started the day properly, so I went and had a haircut, I have quite long hair and its really messy at times(SIN) so I get the sides shaved (SIN) and got the barber to give me a Turkish shave (SIN) to help me sweat out the booze. I needed to sober up, I was meeting my girlfriend at 2pm because she was getting a tattoo (SIN) and I don’t deal well with watching that kind of thing. I needed a change of clothes before then and couldn’t be bothered to go home to get changed, but when I was in the changing rooms trying the new clothes on I ripped the sleeve on my shirt(SIN), sods law! I left wearing a fairly fancy suede jacket with a cotton lining (SIN). Although when I left I saw a guy leave the shop next door wearing a much nicer leather jacket, I wish I had his jacket instead (SIN). I stopped in to grab a coffee too, I had enough stamps for a free one and redeemed it, when I left the shop there was what looked like a homeless guy next to the doorway, sitting on a cardboard box next to a businessman on a table working away on his laptop, I gave the coffee to the homeless man (SIN)

So after I met my girlfriend to get her tattoo, (LOTS of pain…she was screaming JESUS CHRIST(SIN) the whole time which puts me off getting one of my own), we went for lunch together, she had just got paid for the previous months work, her work don’t pay every day unfortunately (SIN) so when she does get paid, we’ll go out for a bit of a fancy lunch or something else special. For starters I had loin of rabbit(SIN), which was quite funny because my horoscope for the day (SIN) said that I would “be faced with an old family pet”. She had a shellfish bisque with lobster, mussels, prawns, the work! (SIN) and we both had Steak with a blue cheese dressing (SIN). By this point I had got passed the hangover and swore that I would never drink again, then we had a cocktail instead of dessert so that oath didn’t last that long..(SIN).

She gave me a present that she made in an evening class, she’s always into making and crafting beautiful little trinkets, she made me a copper effigy of jesus on the cross (SIN), it was brilliant, such a thoughtful gift! I’m a bit short of cash at the minute but I had planned on giving her a hoodie of mine she always wears (SIN), it’s a bit big but she seemed to like it. I loaned my mother a couple of hundred quid the week before and was supposed to get it back this week, but nope..not expecting to see it again, she always does this, I hate her! (SIN) She actually rang me again after lunch to borrow another £20 but I said “no mother, I’m putting my foot down, I can’t afford to, I’m going to be stubborn about this” (SIN)

Another reason I don’t have much money is because I bought my girlfriend a necklace for her birthday at the end of the month, she knows all my good hiding places in our place so I gave my next door neighbour a wrapped present to mind for me until her birthday, I told her it was just some beads for my girlfriend to use in her crafts workshop, I know it was mean to deceive her(SIN) but she can’t keep a secret for love nor money, she ruined a Christmas present last year and I just can’t get over it (SIN).

That evening when we got back home I helped her feed her pet snake (SIN), I held it whilst she cleaned out the tank, then I got a little rat(SIN) from her store to feed it…to be honest, I hate snakes but she loves them so I told her I love them too…I said it early in our relationship, y’know, as you do in a new relationship, and now I’m stuck with the lie(SIN)! Whilst she caught up on some work, I went out to the garden and did a bit of tending to the crops, I have a little vegetable plot with potatoes and carrots in it (SIN) and a youngish cherry tree, I only planted it 2 years ago but a cherry had fallen on the floor(SIN) so I ate it (SIN), not great, I can see why you wait for them to mature! They were redoing a garden centre 2 years ago when I was driving passed and saw these little cherry trees next to a skip, they were throwing it away so I stopped and got one for the garden (SIN). Our little cat seems to like running around the tree chasing insects, it’s cute to watch! It was a rescue cat, mixed breed(SIN), unloved before us.

So we had a chat and because I’m a bit short on cash, I’ve decided to sell my dads allotment(SIN), he left it to me in his will but I never get a chance to use it as I have a garden. We aren’t like, broke but we are having to pick up extra shifts, both of us are working all weekend including Sunday (SIN), money issues can cause some stress. It doesn’t affect us too much though, our relationships still good if you know what I mean 😉 neither of us are planning on marriage, we just aren’t those kinds of people, but our sex life is still good! (SIN) Even when she’s on her period it doesn’t stop us (SIN).

 

Anyway, that’s enough about how my week has gone.

I wonder if Ashers would refuse to make me a cake…?

 

If you’re going to defend your right to discriminate against someone because your faith says you should have that right, or your faith judges the person you are discriminating against as less-than or worse-than you… I will protect that right, but only if you follow what your religion says. Every bit of it. You can’t pick which sins you will permit your customers to have undertaken and which sins they can’t, that’s what equality means. Equal. If you refuse to serve people customers who haven’t been circumcised, customers who sleep with another mans slave, customers who sell an Israelite as a slave as well as customers who are members of the LGBT community…then fair enough, that’s your prerogative…If not, then stop picking which parts of the bible you like and treat a person as a person, nothing more, nothing less. If everybody who attended the Ashers love-in at the Waterfront hall this week follows the bible word for word and adheres to all the do’s and do nots, cool…If not, then as jesus allegedly said, judge not lest thee be judged.

, ,

  • barnshee

    SURE DID
    case decided on the fact that there was not an “offer”
    (offer conditional on provision of HP o valid)

    Are you suggesting that there was an invalid offer to buy a cake?

    Suggest you review Estoppel ( essentially- can`t deny your conduct- you can`t run a cake shop for years take orders over the counter and then say we did not take an order)

  • LordSummerisle

    Ah an institutional response. Kind of flies in the face of the 7 Ecumenical Councils ?

  • PeterBrown

    But no-one is pleading breach of contract in the case so this is a red herring…

  • Croiteir

    The 20th ecumenical council It is completely in line with the Church teachings is and was accepted as such by the whole Church, apart from minor sects such as the Old Catholics who ended up becoming protestant

  • Croiteir

    No – it failed because there was no certainty, just in this case when the order was put in there was no certainty of ability to deliver.

  • Belfast Barman(ager)

    Paraphrasing here but “I’ve nothing against the concept of a god, but I’m not sure I could get behind the idea of one who judges a person over what type of jewellery one wears to church”

  • Belfast Barman(ager)

    If you’re going down that route then 1: maybe the 8-11 year old lobbyist group should sue the bbfc for having movies they can’t see, and the bbc for having a watershed.
    And 2: given that in biblical times, marrying and procreating in your very early teens wouldn’t have been uncommon, isn’t it odd that the subject of “don’t have sex with a child” never came up under sins…

  • Cue Bono

    James doesn’t like Man(ager)s.

  • Cue Bono

    Certainly Carl. If you just send me your books and credit card details I’ll be happy to oblige in true communist style.

  • Croiteir

    Why not ask them and find out?

  • carl marks

    Indeed I was, just shows you that the Bible can be twisted to suit any oil nonsense.
    During history it has been used to justify the most evil actions. The hate filled have used it to justify hating and the intolerant claim that the bible is the source of their in tolerance!
    For example some people believe that their god does not approve of homosexuality , but when asked to show where there god says this they can find nowhere in the gospels to support them ( they have to go the old testament but manage to ignore many other things the old testament claims is a sin ) however they still hold to this false positon!
    Remind you of anyone!

  • carl marks

    Oh dear, let us recap.
    I said that nowhere in the gospels does JC condemn gays or gay marriage. I over the gospels as proof ( evidence) I then asked you to prove where I am wrong (I believe .name of gospel, chapter and verse is traditional) you have of course failed to do this, instead you revert to custom and the old testament.

  • jm

    Equality legislation is there to protect our citizens from discrimination. It is necessary because the are always going to be people who think it is okay to treat other human beings as lesser than them. Have all the beliefs you want, but you cannot use them as justification for treating another person unequally.

  • Cue Bono

    It’s a bit of a given when you consider that his dad went nuclear on Soddom and Gomorrah.

  • LordSummerisle

    “The 20th Ecumenical Council”, hmmm.. there is a debate in that. Old Catholics did not become Protestants, neither did they become Reformed. They remained Catholic, in fact they remained true to Catholic Orthodoxy. Vatican I and it’s reiteration in Vatican II make it impossible for reconciliation. Whilst the Ultramontanes rejoice the Conciliarists decline.

  • carl marks

    Well I asked where did JC speak out about it. And I don’t think it is actually spelt out what those two cities got slaughtered for (wonder how many innocent children were burnt to death there?) There is a belief the the word sodomy has no actual link to the events in the book, since if I remember right there is no actual mention of sodomy or gayness being the reason.
    However that was Yawweh the murdering vengeful god of the old testament, JC was a more civilised , turn the other cheek , love thy neighbours type. And the people refusing to bake the cake claim to be Christians not yawwehists.
    So bake to my point. Could some Christian please tell me when CHRIST condemned either Gays or gay marriage.
    hint try the books by Matthew , Mark, Luke, and John.

  • PeterBrown

    But equality legislation invariably focuses on characteristics of the customer / person being treated not on the service provider / person doing the treating which is coming at it from a somewhat different point of view….

  • PeterBrown

    Presumably there is a statutory exception for films, driving, smoking, sex etc but not T Shirts

  • PeterBrown

    But you actually accused me of saying I had evidence and I asked you to point out where – you have failed to so (again) so presumably you made that up.

    Are you suggesting that by omitting to mention a particular topic it is specifically endorsed? That’s an interesting if totally ridiculous stand point particularly given that in the rest of NT its expressly forbidden in very specific terms by his followers and appointed leaders but if that’s your best point I’ll happily leave it there…..

  • PeterBrown

    See above for your conveniently ignoring the rest of the NT presumably left out because they completely undermine your point

  • jm

    Yes, the legislation protects people from being discriminated against when they wish to avail of a service.

  • carl marks

    Nope I am ignoring the rest of the new testament because I asked you about what your god said not what men said.
    Still not proved your point but it very amusing that a Christian thinks that the relevant bits in the book are not the bits that include JC and only bits that include mortal men.

  • carl marks

    No what I am saying (and you know this) Is its mighty strange that if being gay is such a terrible sin then considering the fact that JC wasn’t behind the door in telling people what was sinful and what wasn’t a sin, then why didn’t he mention at all this one. Which a lot AF “Christians ” think is a big one.
    So what do we have. God never condemned it but men did. Yet you claim proof (which you have failed to give) you are relying on perceived wisdom (and we all know how wrong that can be ) not the word of JC!

  • PeterBrown

    CM

    You continue to at least imply that everything not explicitly referred to by JC as you refer to Him is permissible (I could counter by stating that this particular sin was a given but they would be to lower myself to the level of your logic) and to claim God did not condemn it if you look at the Old Testament and accept the authority of the Apostles is just plain wrong (or as you would put it although in your case with no justification, I notice you have given up trying to defend yourself on the other thread, made up)

  • PeterBrown

    See above – just because JC doesn’t mention it does not make it permissible, as he doesn’t mention a lot of clearly sinful activities. To describe that logic as flawed is an insult to flawed logic, if I don’t specifically condemn something then by omission I am endorsing it!

  • PeterBrown

    Is that actually a reply?

  • carl marks

    Firstly I imply nothing, i am stating bluntly that nowhere in the gospels doesJC even mention homosexuality. Consider then that (we will assume for the sake of argument that you are correct in the whole son of god,great teacher who was sent to show man how to get into heaven thing) it does raise questions as to why then if it was indeed a sin why leave it out!
    As i pointed out before he was not exactly backwards in coming forward. In pointing out when people were sinning!
    You being unable to give any such example have called upon custom and practice (not gospel) and the “opinions” of the apostle’s to back your case.
    Your trying to put your inability to produce any quotes as proof of you being correct is very strange indeed.

  • carl marks

    So, where are we, your god did not condemn it(even though he was sent to set out the rules on how to get to heaven)
    Passing strange i think, you have presenter
    A/ perceived wisdom , claiming that Christian theologians throughout history have held your point, but most of those people by today’s standards of knowledge would be considered woefully I’ll informed in the nature of the world and the sciences. And need I point that slavery, child labour, and treating women as cháttels were all perfectly acceptable to many Christian theologians at one time or another, so perceived wisdom is often wrong.
    Now you mention the new testament as proof, again may i point out that these are but the words of men not your god.

  • carl marks

    Which other thread would that be then!

  • Cue Bono

    So for two thousand years the greatest brains in theology have gotten it all wrong about homosexuality. Who knew?

  • eiregain

    “The presumed references to ‘homosexuality’ itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words, arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), and porneia.While it is not disputed that the three Greek words concern sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars have presented counter arguments”

    So again it’s interpretation of ancient languages and translations that lead to this confusion and you choose to see past the areas that don’t align with your current view.
    eunuchs are mentioned a few times in relation to men with no attraction towards women, how they self mutilated and how this was outlawed for their benefit.

    A proper understanding of historical attitudes towards sexual relations is key.

    Many commentators have argued that the references to homosexuality in the NT, or the Bible in general, have to be understood in their proper historical context. Indeed, most interpreters come to the text with a preconceived notion of what the Bible has to say about normative sexual behaviors, influencing subsequent interpretations. For example, William Walker says that the very notion of “homosexuality” (or even “heterosexuality,” “bisexuality” and “sexual orientation”) is essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers.The word “homosexuality” and the concept of sexual orientation as being separate from one’s perceived masculinity or femininity (i.e. gender identity) did not take shape until the 19th century. Moreover, although some ancient Romans (i.e. doctors, astrologers, etc.) discussed congenital inclinations to unconventional sexual activities such as homosexuality, this classification fails to correspond to a modern psychological, biological and genetic distinction between homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual orientations.

    Sorry for the copy pasta http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament

    Here’s the source, it didn’t take me long to find reasoned arguement that washes away your idea of “religious law”

  • eiregain

    Corinthians are NT no?

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

    More madness,
    Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence

    I could go all day mate.
    “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalms 137:9, KJV)

    The word “law” occurs 223 times in the New Testament of the King James Version. The word “ordinances,” which means law occurs seven times. Obviously there is more than one type of law referred to in the New Testament.

    One of the major problems with the words “law,” “ordinances,” and “covenant” in the New Testament is that it is often not clear which “law” or “covenant” is being discussed. But in each case God has given us a way to know which law or covenant is meant. Here we get into the problems of interpretation of the Bible.

  • Aaron Williamson

    Again, I think your missing the point.

    The article is saying that Christians are inconsistent with OT law. I was pointing out that we have a developed way of understanding that law and our relationship to it which makes the accusation in the article unfair.

    As regards the NT view of homosexuality, I think it is pretty clear. I could link you to any number of articles supporting scholars who agree with me but I guess you could find some who agree with your side.

  • PeterBrown

    And discrimination is being treated less favourably than other people but in this case no-one would have been baked the cake. I’m not saying that isn’t an issue but it isn’t discrimination against a person as such which is the focus of the legislation and that is why this case is so difficult and potentially so significant.

  • PeterBrown

    Are you making it up? ;-p

  • PeterBrown

    I hacpve accepted the point that JC does not mention it you have ignored my point now repeated

    You continue to at least imply that everything not explicitly referred to by JC as you refer to Him is permissible (I could counter by stating that this particular sin was a given but they would be to lower myself to the level of your logic) and to claim God did not condemn it if you look at the Old Testament and accept the authority of the Apostles is just plain wrong (or as you would put it although in your case with no justification,

  • Guest

    I think you need to read Genesis 18 & 19 again as well as the other posts and try to be factually accurate

  • PeterBrown

    Hmmm no relationship between Sodom and sodomy – I think you need to read Genesis 18 & 19 again as well as the other posts and try to be factually accurate

  • PeterBrown

    To the extent that the above post can be deciphered God did condemn it, and when virtually everyone still accepted slavery, child labour and treating women as chattels it was Chritians who were instrumental in the movements to end all of these injustices – the rest is gobbledygook

  • Aaron Williamson

    What you’re saying is ‘they should be forced to go against their principles because they are presumably going against their principles in other areas’. Nice.

  • Aaron Williamson

    Read a good systematic theology and that should shed some light on it for you. It can be understood if you want to. I guess its easier just to pretend that its all an incomprehensible mess and that Christians are all disingenuous scumbags, takes less work. It is hard to allow people to have their principles, even if you disagree strongly with them. I know because us Christians are terrible at that too.

  • carl marks

    No what i am saying is that the Christian principals ( and it should be noted that not all Christians are against gays or gay marriage) are very selective!
    I am sure I don’t have to through the list of things called sin in the bible are accepted by many homophobic Christains as OK.

  • carl marks

    Do you never answer a question!
    What other thread is that then?

  • carl marks

    Oh, you do realise we are talking about were in the gospels ( Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and I asked where in those gospels JC even mentioned homosexuality.
    Now Genesis in not part of the Gospels, i hope that has cleared things up for you!

  • carl marks

    Well they got it wrong about a lot of things, slavery, women’s rights, the earth place in the universe, the number of elements, unless of course you are claiming infallibility. ( do you thing the pope used the ” who are you to argue with all those theologians who historically disagree with you ” on Martin Luther) no I’m sorry just because a mistake has been going on for a long as time doesn’t stop it from being a mistake!

  • carl marks

    Bit unclear what JC condemned, I mentioned a few things.
    Now to your other points, you say Christians were involved (as were many non Christians and atheists) in ending these things but you miss out a few facts . firstly many Christians supported Slavery and were active in the trade, with the blessing of there Church’s ( many of whom were also involved in the trade) and it is also worth noting that some Christian groups still believe in racial segregation.
    Now women’s rights , again many Christian Churches and groups have opposed any advancement of women’s rights throughout history and even today many church’s regard women as subordinate to men and do not believe they can be priests or ministers.

  • barnshee

    The argument surrounds acceptance

    Offer to buy a cake was it made?
    Was it accepted by Ashers?

    (contract law has basically 4 components
    1offer
    2acceptance
    3 capacity
    4 consideration)

  • barnshee

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

    More madness,
    Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”

    I personally like these ( I assume you have never lived withg an otherwise all female household If only I were brave enough to put them onb teh wall)

  • PeterBrown

    The previous Ashers thread

  • PeterBrown

    I have also pointed out and you are continuing to ignore my point that your whole point is that if it is not in the gospels (which I hace accepted) then it is not a sin which is frankly laughable – are you seriously disputing it is dealt with elsewhere in the OT or NT?

  • PeterBrown

    In relation to your mistaken beliefs about Sodom specifically not the general point…

  • Croiteir

    Indeed – that is all correct – but there was no acceptance. The order was taken but it was not accepted.

  • carl marks

    Funny so did I! Especially with the similar principal thing. But in this debate so far asking a baker to bake a cake with a pro gay marriage decoration has been compared to a person pissing on the floor of a public bar, so i wasn’t really surprised.

  • I oppose those behind the “conscience clause” and their cynical motives aimed at exploiting the fears of their religious supporters, but I’ll also be surprised if the Equality Commission’s case succeeds. A business is free to supply whatever goods or services it wishes, so long as it does not discriminate against those who wish to use or purchase those goods or services it offers. Ashers simply did not supply the type of cake that Mr. Lee requested. Furthermore, no contract existed as there was no consideration; his money was refunded.

    Freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right from which other rights like freedom of speech and religion emanate, but I think present equality legislation already adequately protects such freedom.

    I went into greater detail on how I think the relevant legislation applies here: https://danieldcollins.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/equality-legislation-already-adequately-protects-freedom-of-conscience/