The two men in front of Sandy didn't look at sample cakes, but simply stared at her.
The taller one spoke.
"I'm Bill, and this is my fiancee, Ed."
"Nice to meet you, Bill and Ed. Would you like a wedding cake?"
"Would you have a problem making a cake for a gay couple?"
"No-would you have a problem buying a cake from a Christian bakery?"
"Uh...no." Bill and Ed exchanged a confused look.
"Good! Then possibly we can do business!"
"Okay. You wouldn't charge us more because we're gay, right?"
"No more and no less than our competitors-we make fine cakes, only the best ingredients and decorations, but we are competitive on price."
"That sounds fine." Bill smiled. "I thought, being Christian and all, that you might try to
discriminate against us."
Sandy laughed.
"What color is your money, Bill? Rainbows? We only accept green United States currency here at Annie's."
"That's what we have."
"Then your money is good here! When will you be needing the cake?"
"We haven't really set a date yet, more just looking at options."
"That's fine, Bill. We can't sell cakes if people don't come in to look. We love savvy shoppers who know what they want, and want only the best cakes for their special days."
Ed spoke up for the first time.
"Excuse me, Sandy, but I have a question. Doesn't it bother you at all that we are gay?"
"Should it? Are you a member of my church?"
"No-we don't...attend anywhere." Sandy nodded.
"I knew you weren't members-I would have seen you there. Here's the thing-our church does indeed hold to the Bible as our source for moral standards. While we, while I believe that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, unless you are a member of my church, then you are not under our church discipline. I am under church discipline, so if I were homosexual, then my church would deal with it."
The telephone rang, and Sandy excused herself to answer it. Bill and Ed talked quietly.
"Sorry about that, guys. I'm flying solo today-my boss, Annie, is out delivering a cake."
"Sandy, thank you for your time-we've got a few more places to check out before we make a decision."
"That's fine, guys-here's our card, and I hope that we can do business."
The two most confused gays in Indiana left Humble Annie's Christian Cakes Emporium.
13 comments:
Hope that this helps clarify the situ for those wondering about it all.
Not really. Your point here seems to be that a Christian's conscience needn't be troubled by doing business with a gay person, even if the transaction furthers what the Christian believes to be a sinful aim. Presumably likewise a Christian hotelier could rent a room to a male-female couple without checking to see if they were married, or a Christian could deposit money in a bank without worrying that that money might be lent out at interest.
(You also seem to think that gay people run around the countryside looking for Christians to persecute, and are shocked when they meet a Christian willing to treat them decently.)
But the Indiana law wasn't written for Christians who don't mind baking cakes for gay weddings, but for those who do mind. Then, of course, the law had to be "clarified," but you can't blame the culture warriors for that.
Hello Lu-you mention 'a Christian's conscience'.
That is very close to the point of the post. MY conscience. In the story Sandy's conscience is clear:
homosexuality is wrong, according to God.
But her conscience covers HER. Not Bill and Ed. They, not being members of her church, would not be under her church's discipline. And if they are not members of her church, not Christian...then why should she discriminate against them?
As for:"You also seem to think that gay people run around the countryside looking for Christians to persecute"-for the purpose of the story, yes.
And in the real world. If, for example, homosexual activists wish to confront Christians for the purpose of advancing their agenda, I can totally see some Bill and Ed bypassing 30 other bakery s to 'target' one which claims to be Christian. I think that you would agree that such things might happen. In fishing, it's called 'going where the fish are'.
Let me bring it down to a personal level, Lu. In my own extended family there is a homosexual woman, which I think I've mentioned before here at FDW.
My conscience is clear, and I agree with Scripture concerning homosexuality.
Do I snub her? Do I discriminate against her? No-I treat her with the respect I extend to everyone.
But if she wanted to come to MY church to marry her significant other, I and my church would say no.
On Facebook I posted the actual Indiana Law which caused so many conniptions amongst the Left. There's nothing in it which speaks to any discrimination against anyone. I encourage you to read the actual law for yourself, though I would suggest that you do as I did, and seek out the actual law rather than anyone "spin" on what it means.
My cynical opinion about this entire mess is that the Leftish Democrats are attempting to gin up their base before next year's election cycle. Any Republican who announces candidacy will hear bad things said about them in the press. And so it goes.
By the bye-back in 1981 I was moving to Milwaukee to finish out my time in the service, and stopped in Escanaba, Michigan for a road break.
In a Christian book store I found a cassette that looked interesting:
"Grass Roots Music" by a band named Zion Mountain Folk.
Why mention now?
"Humble Annie" is one of the songs, about an old pick-up truck by that name, so humble that a proud man wouldn't be seen driving it.
So that's where the name came from for the bakery.
Another genesis of the post:
someone had written, I think on Reddit, this statement:
"If Christians lived up to their ideals, they would sell their wares to anyone regardless of that person's sins."
Another genesis point:
"15Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler;
16but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name." 1 Pet 4:15-16
I once heard a sermon which suggested that the term used here, 'troublesome meddler' meant specifically meddling in the business of those outside the church, as in telling people what they should or shouldn't do.
I even wrote a post about that a few years ago.
My small group is doing a Bible study of Daniel. He went in the lions den due to his personal conscience, but he served the kings of Babylon well, and didn't refuse to carry out their orders; at different times, he was the second most powerful ruler in Babylon. To bring it all home, he would have agreed with Sandy and Humble Annie that they should sell cakes to anyone as that was their business. What kind of sinners they customers may be wasn't.
It's probably true that sometime, somewhere in the US, some gay person purposely targeted or challenged a Christian and was surprised to be treated as a human being in return. But most of us, most of the time, just want to live our lives, and I can't imagine that anyone planning a wedding would have time or energy for such foolery. Also, recall that (per Gallup) some 77 percent of the US population identifies as Christian; exclude Catholics and Mormons and you're down to 52 percent. The odds are still overwhelming that your average gay person meets Christians every single day.
I've read the relevant parts of the law, and I've read explanations of the discriminatory potential. (Oh, google them yourself, you'll find them.) You are right, nowhere did it say "thou shalt discriminate against gay people," but it was clearly written to allow it. Then, of course, the mean liberals had to put their oar in, so the specifically antidiscriminatory language got put in. That put things back to the status quo ante, whereby you cannot specifically invoke religion as an excuse for discrimination in Indiana -- but you can still discriminate wherever no antidiscrimination law exists, which is most of the state.
In another post you said if you were in charge same-sex marriage would be illegal everywhere. How about firing someone because they're gay, or refusing to rent them an apartment? Yes, I know, you are too noble to do such things, but would you countenance them in your realm?
By the way, you're undoubtedly correct that Democratic politicians will make as much hay, or gin, out of this as they can, that being what politicians do with every exploitable incident that flits across the political landscape. Political scientists have long speculated that anti-same-sex-marriage ballot measures in many states in 2004 helped push W over the top by turning out lots of right-wing voters, especially evangelical Protestants. (That and vote-suppression shenanigans in Ohio.) It's pretty amazing how much the politics of same-sex marriage have turned around in the last 11 years.
Abortion is another issue the right uses to motivate the base, and it's been a highly effective tool for both fundraising and getting the vote out. I think you're also correct that the GOP leadership (official and otherwise) doesn't really want it banned, mostly because they couldn't then exploit it as they do now.
Since that makes two points of agreement in one comment, you will be pleased to know that I do think HRC will be the Democratic nominee. She wants it so bad she can taste it, even more if possible than in 2008, and she'll give up only if she decides she can't win -- and right now she leads all the hypothetical matchups by double digits.
"that Democratic politicians will make as much hay, or gin, out of this as they can, that being what politicians do with every exploitable incident that flits across the political landscape."
I have as much contempt for Republicans who exploit circumstance as I do Dems.
I resent anyone lying to me, and I resent any attempt to engage my emotions for a political cause.
Which means that I'm not backing anyone in the next election yet-I'll vote for the one who dissapoints the least.
I resent anyone lying to me, and I resent any attempt to engage my emotions for a political cause.
Find me a politician who does neither of those things, and I'll find you a unicorn. (It won't be hard: your politician will be riding it.)
I'm going to take a wild guess here that you'll still be voting Republican, because odds are high that'll be the party of the pro-life candidate.
My not so wild guess is that you will support whoever continues to protect Abortions. Your card is the seven of diamonds, am I right?
This is harder to write on my Macbook, but I already shut down my desktop.
Have a good night, Lu-
Abortion isn't make or break for me. I'll support a candidate who promotes the interests of the 99 percent. Odds are at least 99 to 1 that that will be a Democrat.
Two more alleged conservatives have announced their ego trips.
I would love to see one true Conservative step forward, and the rest of the gang of 22 drop out AND THEN do all that they can to support the true Conservative.
But nope.
Instead the bickerfest/one-upmanship contest will drag on for months, with the media egging on the combatants,waiting for any miss-statement/flub that can be used to deligitimize any campaign.
I believe your prediction is correct. Can you name me someone you consider a true conservative? Sarah Palin?
Why don't you like Mike Huckabee? I'm genuinely curious. He looks like a terrible idea to me, of course. And, of course, you'd prefer any of them to HRC. (At least we can agree that, say, Charles Manson would make a terrible president.)
This isn't hedging-but it's true:
I don't know enough about any of the presidential contenders to judge who is a true Conservative.
Some such as Ted Cruz have said some of the right things, but anyone running for President will say things.
I have no use for Jeb Bush, the Gummo Marx of the Bush clan.
Honestly, politics is so nasty that I will probably bring hand sanitizer into the voting booth to get that spot off may hands as quickly as possible.
Good news-stopped by the public library to get the movie "Forrest Gump"...and they were having a book sale, which always does my heart good.
Post a Comment