Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Having fun up there on that high horse?

1. Homosexual conduct, I.e, sex,dating, marriage, etc is considered a sin in almost all Christian Theology.
2. "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure." 1 Timothy 5:22.

By making a cake for a same sex wrdding, they are involved in a marriage process that by most Christian Doctrines is a perversion of the Marriage Sacrament, and a sin. Thus, they are sharing in that sin, by willfully contributing to it. This is a valid theological argument. Just because you don't believe that way, doesn't mean anybody else is wrong for thinking it.

So gays can't even date? That's fucked up. How can anyone agree to that?

Belief.

[The Flutterlands]

So gays can't even date? That's fucked up. How can anyone agree to that?

Gays are not supposed to have any homosexual activity. They can date and marry women, if they want, but no homosexual activity.

Well that's counterproductive...

[Nordengrund]

I used to politically oppose homosexuality, but I've become accepting of it. I think it's a sin, but we're all sinners. I don't think Christ or the Apostles intended for Christianity to be a political movement, and being too focused on politics and the culture war just tarnishes the Gospel.

As for baking cakes, do your job and bake one!

I identify as a libertarian, but I disagree with what seems to be the majority consensus among libertarians when it comes to marriage privatization.

[United Marxist Nations]

Gays are not supposed to have any homosexual activity. They can date and marry women, if they want, but no homosexual activity.

Well that's counterproductive...

Not really.

[The Flutterlands]

Well that's counterproductive...

Not really.

Marrying anyone except the person you love is productive?

Yeah okay...

[United Marxist Nations]

Not really.

Marrying anyone except the person you love is productive?

Yeah okay...

It's not counterproductive.

Same-sex persons cannot marry one-another.

[The Flutterlands]

Marrying anyone except the person you love is productive?

Yeah okay...

It's not counterproductive.

Same-sex persons cannot marry one-another.

Tell that to married gay couples, but lets agree to disagree...

[United Marxist Nations]

It's not counterproductive.

Same-sex persons cannot marry one-another.

Tell that to married gay couples, but lets agree to disagree...

Their marriages are invalid. They are not united in Christ.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Having fun up there on that high horse?

1. Homosexual conduct, I.e, sex, dating, marriage, etc is considered a sin in almost all Christian Theology.
2. "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure." 1 Timothy 5:22.

By making a cake for a same sex wrdding, they are involved in a marriage process that by most Christian Doctrines is a perversion of the Marriage Sacrament, and a sin. Thus, they are sharing in that sin, by willfully contributing to it. This is a valid theological argument. Just because you don't believe that way, doesn't mean anybody else is wrong for thinking it.

Actually, yes, I am enjoying the high horse ride, thank you for the concern though but don't worry, I am doing just fine.

While the premises are all fine and dandy, the conclusion is erroneous.

Just because you are providing a service doesn't mean that, by making a cake as part of your business, you are contributing to the wedding.

There is a difference between getting paid to do something, and volunteering to do something. When you pay to do something, you are paying for someone to do something you want as opposed to a friend doing it for you.

The theological argument, thus, only applies to those people who, upon knowing someone needs a cake, volunteer to make a cake. By volunteering, instead of being paid, you are putting yourself in a voluntary position to aid and even share in the sin of others. Applying it to businesses, whose only care is to get paid for a good job, is a fallacious conclusion from the premises of your argument because a business is not volunteering any resources to making a cake, in other words, they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. They are doing it because they are getting paid, plain and simple, as such, there's no moral responsibility per se to judge the purposes of said product or service in general since the business owner is not, concurrently, the end user of the product of service in question. Your case would be stronger if we were talking about a friend who volunteers to make a cake, but this isn't the case at all here, therefore it doesn't apply.

Besides, if that was the case, Berkshire Hattaway's employees are all committing the sin of greed, based upon this absurd theological conclusion that getting paid to do something is akin to volunteering to do something and "sharing" upon the sins of others because you're doing your job.

This is what I am talking about when I say there's no good argument. Your argument, at best, is logically erroneous in its conclusion given it defines "business" as a voluntary endeavor, which it kind of isn't. When you enter a business, the goal is to get paid to pay the bills and feed your family, not to volunteer your time to do things, as nobody eats from volunteering their resources to something. By making a cake for a gay wedding, as a business, the only issue that matters or should matter here is whether they can pay or not, not whether or not they're gay, as you're not doing it for free, so you're not "participating" anymore than Microsoft participates in any reasonable degree to my business nor Dell just because I bought a Dell laptop with Windows 10 installed on it.

"As a partridge that hatches eggs which it has not laid, So is he who makes a fortune, but unjustly; In the midst of his days it will forsake him, And in the end he will be a fool."

Biblical commentary on pairing business with theological ethics is actually quite extensive.

A sale is a voluntary transaction. The action is still a voluntary contribution whether money exchanges hands or not. By agreeing to sell you a product, Dell texhnically is contributing to your business. For instance if they knowingly sold you goods that you would use for illegal ends, they would be culpable as an accomplice. Granted their conscious participation is limited to the sale itself, and is so negligible that we might consider it not even a real contribution, it still counts.

Just because you benefit from said act via monetary compensations does not remove your culpability in said transaction. If anything, it makes you more culpable as you're not only partaking in someone else's sin, you're financially benefitting from doing so.


You're quite in the wrong here, and I'm not sure your posting in good faith here. Your goal seems to be to lambaste conservatives Christians not give their views a fair hearing.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Having fun up there on that high horse?

1. Homosexual conduct, I.e, sex,dating, marriage, etc is considered a sin in almost all Christian Theology.
2. "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure." 1 Timothy 5:22.

By making a cake for a same sex wrdding, they are involved in a marriage process that by most Christian Doctrines is a perversion of the Marriage Sacrament, and a sin. Thus, they are sharing in that sin, by willfully contributing to it. This is a valid theological argument. Just because you don't believe that way, doesn't mean anybody else is wrong for thinking it.

So gays can't even date? That's fucked up. How can anyone agree to that?

In the words of great Gay man who passed too early: you gotta have faith.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Tell that to married gay couples, but lets agree to disagree...

Their marriages are invalid. They are not united in Christ.

Depends on what you mean by marriage. There's not a universally accepted definition of it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It's not counterproductive.

Same-sex persons cannot marry one-another.

Tell that to married gay couples, but lets agree to disagree...

I will not tell them they can or cannot do anything.

But neither will I lie, and say that Christianity is permissive to Homosexuality.

[United Marxist Nations]

https://stjuvenaly.org/aleppo/

Eastern Orthodox charity for Aleppo, organized to help the community there rebuild and especially to help the Diocese of Aleppo rebuild.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"As a partridge that hatches eggs which it has not laid, So is he who makes a fortune, but unjustly; In the midst of his days it will forsake him, And in the end he will be a fool."

Biblical commentary on pairing business with theological ethics is actually quite extensive.

A sale is a voluntary transaction. The action is still a voluntary contribution whether money exchanges hands or not. By agreeing to sell you a product, Dell texhnically is contributing to your business. For instance if they knowingly sold you goods that you would use for illegal ends, they would be culpable as an accomplice. Granted their conscious participation is limited to the sale itself, and is so negligible that we might consider it not even a real contribution, it still counts.

Just because you benefit from said act via monetary compensations does not remove your culpability in said transaction. If anything, it makes you more culpable as you're not only partaking in someone else's sin, you're financially benefitting from doing so.


You're quite in the wrong here, and I'm not sure your posting in good faith here. Your goal seems to be to lambaste conservatives Christians not give their views a fair hearing.

If this is the case then why are we not going after the makers of Wireshark or Dell because people use their products for illegal activities like hacking computers?

See, you're dealing with it from a virtue standpoint, I am dealing with it from a consequentialist standpoint. Your premise is that because I am selling someone I should be culpable for the sale because I am profiting from it. From my point of view that is an absurd conclusion, because you're not responsible for what they do with your product, they are, unless I know what they will be using it for, which then would make me an accessory of the crime, but Dell doesn't know. And, since being gay is not illegal, and discriminating against people seems to be un-Christian, you are basically being un-Christian to deal with un-Christian activities, which is wrong and quite hypocritical in and of itself.

I know I am not in the wrong, here. If you wish to engage in this useless debate about business ethics, which, mind, is not your field, you're welcome to it. And to presume I am posting in bad faith, and that I am not giving conservative Christians a fair hearing is quite rich from you, considering the fact that I am not the one defending and trying to convince myself that your arguments are any good, you are. And if you want to convince me you need to come up with a better bullshit reason than "you're culpable because you're getting paid for it". Of course I am getting paid for it, that's the fucking point of doing business with someone else, that I am getting paid for my job. It might be a voluntary transaction, but sometimes it isn't so voluntary considering that it might not be legal to do such a transaction. Would it be unethical? For some people, it would be, but then as a business owner my job is not to care about what other people think, it's to do my job.

If this is complicated for you, then stop replying because, honestly, unless you can prove that doing your job to the best of your ability and being open to the public is somehow unethical then you have nothing to defend it with from a practical standpoint, and as such, the only thing you're doing is basically the equivalent of a navel gaze without knowing the nature of businesses even though you want to lecture me about business ethics. But here, let me make it easier from you since you seem to not know where I stand on businesses:

My philosophy on businesses is purely consequentialist, meaning I believe only the results count, and that the only thing that matters in business is the lowest common denominator, staying on the right side of the law, and making money. Sure, you could say that's wrong, but that's not necessarily an argument against looking at business from said point of view since that's what business is about since you're getting paid to do something, you're not getting paid to philosophize whether what you're doing is right or wrong from your ethical standpoint. To me, your personal ethics and your business ethics are separate, and what you wouldn't do in private you would do in business if it meant making money. In that sense, most virtue ethicists haven't been able to convince me to:

1 - look at it their way.
2 - concede that discriminating against a client is sometimes necessary when it comes to keep a clean conscience because "I am assisting people I don't like".

I mean, maybe you can, but I doubt it since what you seem to think are Christian business ethics and my business ethics are entirely opposite of each other. While my ethics in regards of business would let me get away with almost anything as long as it's not illegal, a virtue-based business ethic like the one you propose doesn't. Although, if we want to be fair, Christians, even when conservative, are not the whitest sheep of the flock either and would also compromise their perfectly sacrosanct point of view if it meant making money to pay the rent, so there's that, too.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

"As a partridge that hatches eggs which it has not laid, So is he who makes a fortune, but unjustly; In the midst of his days it will forsake him, And in the end he will be a fool."

Biblical commentary on pairing business with theological ethics is actually quite extensive.

A sale is a voluntary transaction. The action is still a voluntary contribution whether money exchanges hands or not. By agreeing to sell you a product, Dell texhnically is contributing to your business. For instance if they knowingly sold you goods that you would use for illegal ends, they would be culpable as an accomplice. Granted their conscious participation is limited to the sale itself, and is so negligible that we might consider it not even a real contribution, it still counts.

Just because you benefit from said act via monetary compensations does not remove your culpability in said transaction. If anything, it makes you more culpable as you're not only partaking in someone else's sin, you're financially benefitting from doing so.


You're quite in the wrong here, and I'm not sure your posting in good faith here. Your goal seems to be to lambaste conservatives Christians not give their views a fair hearing.

If this is the case then why are we not going after the makers of Wireshark or Dell because people use their products for illegal activities like hacking computers?

The operative word there is "knowing." If dell "knowingly" sells you a laptop that you will use for criminal activity they are liable. If they sell you a laptop in good faith, and you then go and use it for nefarious purposes, they're not liable.

Same applies to the cake. If they knowingly make a cake for a same sex wedding, they are liable. If however they don't know it's for a same sex wedding, then they're not.

See, you're dealing with it from a virtue standpoint, I am dealing with it from a consequentialist standpoint.

And? That's your short coming, as virtue is an inherent part of religion. This discussion is about religious ethics.

Your premise is that because I am selling someone I should be culpable for the sale because I am profiting from it.

No, my premise is that sales are a voluntary association. Therefor both people have a hand in said action. One person is not absolved of their involvement simply because they "provided a service"

'From my point of view that is an absurd conclusion, because you're not responsible for what they do with your product, they are, unless I know what they will be using it for, which then would make me an accessory of the crime, but Dell doesn't know.

There you to you said it yourself, invalidating your argument in your own words.

And, since being gay is not illegal, and discriminating against people seems to be un-Christian, you are basically being un-Christian to deal with un-Christian activities, which is wrong and quite hypocritical in and of itself.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Nobody is talking about the Legality of SSM under American Law. We're talking about the sinfulness of SSM with respects to Christian theology. They're not the same thing, though not dissimilar. Just because SSM is legal under American Law doesn't mean it's not a sin. It is the sharing of the sin we are discussing not sharing in any crime

I know I am not in the wrong, here. If you wish to engage in this useless debate about business ethics, which, mind, is not your field, you're welcome to it.

No,but religious ethics, are. And I'm not ignorant of actual business ethics, so you ad hominem fallacy here falls quite short.

And to presume I am posting in bad faith, and that I am not giving conservative Christians a fair hearing is quite rich from you,

I invite you to provide evidence of me going into a themed thread and lambasting everyone there for their religious beliefs simply because I don't agree with them

considering the fact that I am not the one defending and trying to convince myself that your arguments are any good,

no you're just in a room made up of an eclectic group of christians and are calling a good majority of the posters' present, possition bullshit.

you are. And if you want to convince me you need to come up with a better bullshit reason than "you're culpable because you're getting paid for it".

Except that wasn't even close to the argument I gave you. The argument I gave you was that receiving money doesn't automatically make you "not" culpable, as you had asserted, (and then later invalidated by incorporating my argument into yours and attempting to call it yours.)
As I said, receiving money would make you more culpable


You're not exactly proving me wrong on the bad faith posting here. Your aggressive posturing and brow beating here are quite telling from where I stand.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Except that wasn't even close to the argument I gave you. The argument I gave you was that receiving money doesn't automatically make you "not" culpable, as you had asserted, (and then later invalidated by incorporating my argument into yours and attempting to call it yours.)
As I said, receiving money would make you more culpable


You're not exactly proving me wrong on the bad faith posting here. Your aggressive posturing and brow beating here are quite telling from where I stand.

Indeed, but the main point of my argument was that serving cake to a gay couple does not make you culpable at all because, while yes, in a legal standpoint, selling someone to commit a crime, knowingly, is inherently being an accessory of the crime, that doesn't nearly translate well to the legal side of matters in business, whereupon the entire thing is a transactional issue.

While receiving money knowing that this person would use the thing you sold would make you culpable, the selling of certain products or services in a legal manner or ethically neutral manner is in no way equivalent to selling someone an accessory to a crime or an unethical thing. Nor, for that matter, is providing a service an extension of voluntarily accepting to be a tool for said thing. For instance, in cakes, you're selling a service, as such, the thing that you are selling is not something that would, necessarily, make it so that your contribution is equivalent to someone who knowingly does the cake, delivers the cake, and is part of the wedding catering, as well. While one is a transaction, the other one is not.

I would find a point in Christian bakeries saying "we're not going to provide catering services to gay weddings", as that is something that requires more than a transactional activity, but in transactional activities, it depends on where it stands. As you correctly asserted, Dell selling something to me knowing that I plan to use it for illegal activities would be illegal for them to do so. However, Christian bakers legally selling a cake to a gay couple who requested a cake for a service is not illegal, and therefore it would not be unethical in my opinion to sell it, since it doesn't run afoul of the law and they, while knowing, are only providing a transactional service: a cake for money. Now, if they were giving an activity like catering for a wedding, I would agree with said Christians because that involves involving yourself in a participatory manner at the wedding. However, in a cake I tend to see nothing that tells me they are participating in it, or, further, that this is unethical for them to do given that they are engaging in a transaction, not in a voluntary, enthusiastic agreement to participate

The fact that you seem to think that I am browbeating the Christians present who are more conservative than I tells me more about your own posture, personally. If you think I am browbeating Christians, then I really don't care, nor find it a concern, considering I wasn't attacking your position, personally, and neither was I attacking the positions of the people here either. I do consider the position Jamz and you have explained extremely naïve and delusional, but if you do hold those views I am sorry for disparaging them. I am not sorry for saying that other Christians who do not include you or those present hold extremely naïve and delusional views, though. Because that's what they are, and in the most polite way possible, I would have said they are completely out of touch with how things work, because businesses do not operate on the principle of "let's be shining beacons of virtue", they operate on the principle of "let's make as much money as possible without breaking the law and getting in trouble" and most of business law revolves around how not to let businesses get away with things, and not so much on gentlemen agreements among business owners to try to be a positive influence, so these are different views in which Christianity doesn't really mesh well with modern businesses, and as a result it is no wonder why a lot of Christians are against capitalism and yet another reason why I don't find any sense in claiming to be a pro-capitalist Christian at all when the business world is entirely incompatible with the Christian one, and the faster Christians learn this, the better, because you're not going to change how business is assumed to operate from a "let's get away with it" point of view to a "let's be shining beacons of virtue" view, business owners will still try to get away with what they can because of the money.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Of course I am getting paid for it, that's the fucking point of doing business with someone else, that I am getting paid for my job. It might be a voluntary transaction, but sometimes it isn't so voluntary considering that it might not be legal to do such a transaction. Would it be unethical? For some people, it would be, but then as a business owner my job is not to care about what other people think, it's to do my job.

Pursuit of profit is not on trial here. The question that you brought up was on the theological reasoning behind a baker abstaining from making a cake for a SSM wedding. Which as I said, from the point of view of the Baker, making a cake for a SSM wedding is knowingly contributing to and sharing in the sin of others, which is condemned. Thus they argue they should be allowed to evoke their 1st amendment right to free practice of religion in abstaining.

If this is complicated for you, then stop replying because, honestly, unless you can prove that doing your job to the best of your ability and being open to the public is somehow unethical then you have nothing to defend it with from a practical standpoint, and as such, the only thing you're doing is basically the equivalent of a navel gaze without knowing the nature of businesses even though you want to lecture me about business ethics.

A. Dude you're embarrassing yourself with all these ad hominem.
B. "Doing your job to the best of your ability" and "serving the public" are not the questions at the heart of this matter. The question is does a business owner have the right operate their business in accordance wither their religious beliefs?

But here, let me make it easier from you since you seem to not know where I stand on businesses:

oh boy.

My philosophy on businesses is purely consequentialist, meaning I believe only the results count,

So the ends always justify the means huh?

and that the only thing that matters in business is the lowest common denominator, staying on the right side of the law, and making money

A man after Martin Shkrelli's heart.

Sure, you could say that's wrong, but that's not necessarily an argument against looking at business from said point of view since that's what business is about since you're getting paid to do something, you're not getting paid to philosophize whether what you're doing is right or wrong from your ethical standpoint

.
On the contrary, as the owner/executive of a business, you have an implicit necessity to run your business as ethically as possible.

. To me, your personal ethics and your business ethics are separate, and what you wouldn't do in private you would do in business if it meant making money.

Thanks Shkrelli. You've just equivocated medical price gouging, corporate spying, and contract killing. After all, it's just business, nothing personal.

In that sense, most virtue ethicists haven't been able to convince me to:

1 - look at it their way.

That doesn't make you right, that just makes you obtuse. A complete willful refusal to consider another persons point of view is frankly intellectually dishonest.

2 - concede that discriminating against a client is sometimes necessary when it comes to keep a clean conscience because "I am assisting people I don't like"

man imagine how much better the world would have been if Porsche had refused to make engines for the Luftwafte because they didn't support fascist imperialism. Remember the dollar is more important than your conscience.

I mean, maybe you can, but I doubt it since what you seem to think are Christian business ethics and my business ethics are entirely opposite of each other.

. That actually hasn't been my argument at all.

While my ethics in regards of business would let me get away with almost anything as long as it's not illegal

why stop there? after all, the law only matters if you get caught.

a virtue-based business ethic like the one you propose doesn't

Exactly why let a pesky sort of thing like morals get in your way of pursuit of the all mighty dollar.

. Although, if we want to be fair, Christians, even when conservative, are not the whitest sheep of the flock either and would also compromise their perfectly sacrosanct point of view if it meant making money to pay the rent, so there's that, too.

I never said they were, that doesn't mean their desire to run a morally fit business is invalidated.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

man imagine how much better the world would have been if Porsche had refused to make engines for the Luftwafte because they didn't support fascist imperialism. Remember the dollar is more important than your conscience.

In business, yes, money actually is more important than your conscience, despite your claims to the contrary. Despite the rest of your amusing response, yes, the "pursuit of the almighty dollar" is what matters in business, as long as you can get away with staying on the legal side of things (and that's more out of not wanting to pay hefty fines or going to prison). Shkrelli had a point about businesses, that you're going to get away with things as long as they are legal. Do I think he is an asshole? Yea, of course I think he is an asshole, but what he's doing is perfectly legal, and businesses do not operate on a virtuous principle, they run in accordance to a profit-making principle. If you notice the history of business legislation, it's not something that business owners decide what the law is, it's consumers who do in order to not get shafted.

As I said above, Christianity and business ethical points, in a particularly capitalist society, do not mesh. A business owner can run it in accordance to their religious beliefs, that doesn't necessarily mean that their religious beliefs are legal, which is bad for them as a business owner, but not necessarily bad for them as a costumer because an irreligious man cannot discriminate against them either for differences in religious beliefs and ethics or for who they are if they fall under a legally protected category of customers.

Also, their desire to run what they think is a "morally upstanding business" is invalidated the moment they decided to run a business. You can't run a business and think that you can be a morally upstanding business owner. Morals are not the ones who are going to pay your bills, money is. That the bakers think should be able to abstain because of their first amendment rights is utterly irrelevant when it comes down to consumers, who are the ones who drive business legislation against business excesses to begin with. Business owners are beholden to their consumers' demands for ethical behavior through the law. Businesses do not make their own rules because that's not their job, their job is to please the consumer. As the chief executive/owner of a business my responsibility is not to run a business in an ethical manner, it is to make money and keep my business profitable. I have a responsibility with the state to not run afoul of the law, and to my consumers to not shaft them out of their money and behave the way they think I should, but that goes without saying since being on the right side of the law and pleasing my consumers is going to not make me lose money and make me profits anyways.

In other words, being a business owner doesn't give you any degree of freedom to do whatever the hell you feel like and make your great magnum opus on business ethics that everyone should follow. It just makes you beholden to your costumers since now they own your time. You don't own your own business, which is a misconception from the word "owner", since you don't call the shots, other people already did it for you to protect your consumers from your ethical code where it strays from their desires anyways. Just because I justify businesses as being able to do whatever they want as long as it's not illegal doesn't mean that business owners don't have responsibilities to their customers and to the government, they do, but that doesn't necessarily translate to having a personal code of ethics, as other people's desires are what you should take into account since a business owner isn't a high and mighty lord in a castle, they are a servant of the public. In other words, Christians who think they can bring their Christian flavor of ethics into business are looking at it the wrong way. You're not being paid to be a pretty boy, you're being paid to do a job for your client and to keep your client happy, so business ethics revolve around the consumer's tolerance to the business owner's business worldview and how business owners adapt to the reception of their ethical codes, not around the business owner's tolerance of client's ethical codes and how the client should adapt to the business owner's ethical code.

In theory, yes, a business owner and their personal ethics should be able to coexist, in practice, nobody has ever achieved that as such it is irrelevant to talk about what is just theory.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except that wasn't even close to the argument I gave you. The argument I gave you was that receiving money doesn't automatically make you "not" culpable, as you had asserted, (and then later invalidated by incorporating my argument into yours and attempting to call it yours.)
As I said, receiving money would make you more culpable


You're not exactly proving me wrong on the bad faith posting here. Your aggressive posturing and brow beating here are quite telling from where I stand.

Indeed, but the main point of my argument was that serving cake to a gay couple does not make you culpable at all because, while yes, in a legal standpoint, selling someone to commit a crime, knowingly, is inherently being an accessory of the crime, that doesn't nearly translate well to the legal side of matters in business, whereupon the entire thing is a transactional issue.

Except that's not what the duck were talking about. We're talking about the implications in Christian theology, not the legality of SSM, or maximizing revenue. The crime analogy is the best way to try to make the point to you. Christianity forbids SSM. The owners of the business do not and to knowingly sell a cake for a SSM, because by Christian ethics they would be contributing to and sharing in the sins of other people. They want their right to free practice upheld even in their business dealings. They don't subscribe to your, anything goes so long as you make a profit ethical model.

While receiving money knowing that this person would use the thing you sold would make you culpable

/discussion. That's really the bottom line. They don't want to be culpable for sinning.

the selling of certain products or services in a legal manner or ethically neutral manner is in no way equivalent to selling someone an accessory to a crime or an unethical thing

We're not talking about American Law we're talking about Christian Law, why can't you grasp that. To them it's exactly the same thing because they're doing something against their religious beliefs.

Nor, for that matter, is providing a service an extension of voluntarily accepting to be a tool for said thing. For instance, in cakes, you're selling a service, as such, the thing that you are selling is not something that would, necessarily, make it so that your contribution is equivalent to someone who knowingly does the cake, delivers the cake, and is part of the wedding catering, as well. While one is a transaction, the other one is not.

On the contrary, both are transactions. Model a you purchase a cake, on model B you purchase labor. The product is different but capital is exchanged. Transaction.

I would find a point in Christian bakeries saying "we're not going to provide catering services to gay weddings", as that is something that requires more than a transactional activity,

no it doesn't. Labor is capital.. Catering is a service. Transaction is a transaction regardless of size.

but in transactional activities, it depends on where it stands.

As you correctly asserted, Dell selling something to me knowing that I plan to use it for illegal activities would be illegal for them to do so. However, Christian bakers legally selling a cake to a gay couple who requested a cake for a service is not illegal,

Once again, the we're talking about sinfulness under Christian code of ethics not American Legal Code. Two. Separate. Things.

and therefore it would not be unethical in my opinion to sell it, since it doesn't run afoul of the law

but it does run afoul of Christian Ethics, which the owners have a constitutionally protected right to free practice of, under the first amendment. That is the crux of their argument.

they, while knowing, are only providing a transactional service: a cake for money. Now, if they were giving an activity like catering for a wedding, I would agree with said Christians because that involves involving yourself in a participatory manner at the wedding.

Except both are transactions, one is just a larger transaction than the other.


Let's try a thought expirament.

A gun store, sells a gun to a person they know are doing to use the gun for a violent crime.

Do they share some culpability in the crime? By your standard, no, because they didn't actually pull the trigger, they just provided the product.

In actually they do have culpability under US Law because they knowingly contributed to the crime by providing the product, with full knowledge of the intent.


The same logic flows in the bakery scenario: the baker has culpability because under Christian "Law" because they knowingly contributed to the sin by providing the products with full knowledge of intent.


The difference being here, murder is not a constitutionally protected right, free practice of region is.

However, in a cake I tend to see nothing that tells me they are participating in it, or, further, that this is unethical for them to do given that they are engaging in a transaction, not in a voluntary, enthusiastic agreement to participate

A transaction is a transacfion, no matter how big, no matter how small.

The fact that you seem to think that I am browbeating the Christians present who are more conservative than I tells me more about your own posture, personally. If you think I am browbeating Christians, then I really don't care, nor find it a concern, considering I wasn't attacking your position, personally, and neither was I attacking the positions of the people here either.

Browbeat

"intimidate (someone), typically into doing something, with stern or abusive words."

that is exactly what you've been doing. I can quote excerpts, though difficult from my phone, but you have been considerably antagonistic and abusive in your discussion.

I do consider the position Jamz and you have explained extremely naïve and delusional,

considering you refused to see our side point blank, I have to take that with a grain of salt.

,
but if you do hold those views I am sorry for disparaging them. I am not sorry for saying that other Christians who do not include you or those present hold extremely naïve and delusional views, though. Because that's what they are, and in the most polite way possible, I would have said they are completely out of touch with how things work, because businesses do not operate on the principle of "let's be shining beacons of virtue", they operate on the principle of "let's make as much money as possible without breaking the law and getting in trouble"

No, that's how you believe they should work. Those are your goals, though not unique to you. There are Many businesses do not confine themselves to the framework for the law and build in legal defense as part of their platforms. Coorporations do this all the time, they'll break the law as much as they can get away with so long as they net in the black. Other business models seek to combine profiting with moral conduct. It depends on the goals of those running the business and how they frame their business to meet those goals. Believe it or not there are millions of small businesses that don't operate on the frame work of "let's make all the money we can get" and still manage to turn a considerable profit.

Your position is certainly not some objective base of "how things work"

and most of business law revolves around how not to let businesses get away with things,

all Law is geared toward restricting behavior. It's not unique to business law.

and not so much on gentlemen agreements among business owners to try to be a positive influence, so these are different views in which Christianity doesn't really mesh well with modern businesses, and as a result it is no wonder why a lot of Christians are against capitalism and yet another reason why I don't find any sense in claiming to be a pro-capitalist Christian at all when the business world is entirely incompatible with the Christian one, and the faster Christians learn this, the better, because you're not going to change how business is assumed to operate from a "let's get away with it" point of view to a "let's be shining beacons of virtue" view, business owners will still try to get away with what they can because of the money.

What your purporting is not a blanket "capitalism"' you're purporting The most extreme form of Capitalism. You're practically spouting off Ferangi rules of acquisition.


In the end the question is not whether or not denying cakes for SSM weddings a profitable business decision, the question is doing so upholding Christian Ethics. From the Christian Ethical standpoint it is. Legal ethics might require something else, like refusing all wedding cakes so as not to discriminate against a suspect class.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What your purporting is not a blanket "capitalism"' you're purporting The most extreme form of Capitalism. You're practically spouting off Ferangi rules of acquisition.

Actually, that's what unregulated capitalism would be like.

What we have is a form of regulated capitalism, of which I am not complaining and I think it should be more regulated than it is. But to think that, somehow, capitalism encourages ethical behavior is naïve. It doesn't.

Let's try a thought expirament.

A gun store, sells a gun to a person they know are doing to use the gun for a violent crime. Do they share some culpability in the crime? By your standard, no, because they didn't actually pull the trigger, they just provided the product. In actually they do have culpability under US Law because they knowingly contributed to the crime by providing the product, with full knowledge of the intent. The same logic flows in the bakery scenario: the baker has culpability because under Christian "Law" because they knowingly contributed to the sin by providing the products with full knowledge of intent. The difference being here, murder is not a constitutionally protected right, free practice of region is.

Actually, from a legal standpoint, they would be wrong here since there have already been cases that have established that the freedom of practicing religion is not an absolute right. The supreme court's position on the matter is that you cannot commit illegal activities even though they may happen to be religious. So we don't need to create a thought experiment, we already have opinions in court files across the United States asserting this basic notion. While the Christian baker might think they can refuse based on their religious belief and break the law as a religious exemption, they actually are not exempt from the law.

From an ethical standpoint I think they're in the wrong, but it's not relevant to me as they can think whatever they want. In the end, I am not the one who's being a patron of their establishments.

If they truly believe that they should not make cakes for people they don't like because they're asking them to do a sin, then the appropriate thing to do, as you said, is stop baking wedding cakes.

[United Marxist Nations]

What your purporting is not a blanket "capitalism"' you're purporting The most extreme form of Capitalism. You're practically spouting off Ferangi rules of acquisition.

Actually, that's what unregulated capitalism would be like.

What we have is a form of regulated capitalism, of which I am not complaining and I think it should be more regulated than it is. But to think that, somehow, capitalism encourages ethical behavior is naïve. It doesn't.

Let's try a thought expirament.

A gun store, sells a gun to a person they know are doing to use the gun for a violent crime. Do they share some culpability in the crime? By your standard, no, because they didn't actually pull the trigger, they just provided the product. In actually they do have culpability under US Law because they knowingly contributed to the crime by providing the product, with full knowledge of the intent. The same logic flows in the bakery scenario: the baker has culpability because under Christian "Law" because they knowingly contributed to the sin by providing the products with full knowledge of intent. The difference being here, murder is not a constitutionally protected right, free practice of region is.

Actually, they would be wrong here since there have already been cases that have established that the freedom of practicing religion is not an absolute right. The supreme court's position on the matter is that you cannot commit illegal activities even though they may happen to be religious. So we don't need to create a thought experiment, we already have opinions in court files across the United States asserting this basic notion. While the Christian baker might think they can refuse based on their religious belief and break the law as a religious exemption, they actually are not exempt from the law.

If they truly believe that they should not make cakes for people they don't like because they're asking them to do a sin, then the appropriate thing to do, as you said, is stop baking wedding cakes.

What if they have their business specifically to cater to Christians?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What if they have their business specifically to cater to Christians?

That would be equally discriminating. I mean, I guess if it was a club in which it was a closed-membership with a clear criteria of who can join the club of Johnnie's Baker Club, then perhaps that would change things, but not if they want to be both exclusive and a public accommodation.

From an ethical standpoint, I would say they can do it if they can get away with it without breaking the law, and even then, if they have a good legal defense by all means. It's their business anyways, and if there is enough demand for their business I don't see why not.

[United Marxist Nations]

What if they have their business specifically to cater to Christians?

That would be equally discriminating. I mean, I guess if it was a club in which it was a closed-membership with a clear criteria of who can join the club of Johnnie's Baker Club, then perhaps that would change things, but not if they want to be both exclusive and a public accommodation.

From an ethical standpoint, I would say they can do it if they can get away with it. It's their business anyways, and if there is enough demand for their business I don't see why not.

Then what about Halal and Kosher butchers?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That would be equally discriminating. I mean, I guess if it was a club in which it was a closed-membership with a clear criteria of who can join the club of Johnnie's Baker Club, then perhaps that would change things, but not if they want to be both exclusive and a public accommodation.

From an ethical standpoint, I would say they can do it if they can get away with it. It's their business anyways, and if there is enough demand for their business I don't see why not.

Then what about Halal and Kosher butchers?

Halal and Kosher butchers, as far as I am aware, are butchers who specialize in a certain form of killing and packaging an animal for consumption. They are not, per se, being asked to slaughter an animal in a non-kosher or non-halal way, and if they did, they can just claim that's out of their specialty and that they can't do it.

It's not illegal to refuse service because that's not your specialty. If your specialty is to be a kosher butcher, you can refuse on the grounds that you only slaughter animals following kosher practices, and that's what they are paying for.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then what about Halal and Kosher butchers?

Halal and Kosher butchers, as far as I am aware, are butchers who specialize in a certain form of killing and packaging an animal for consumption. They are not, per se, being asked to slaughter an animal in a non-kosher or non-halal way, and if they did, they can just claim that's out of their specialty and that they can't do it.

They are specifically catering to a religious group, though, namely, Muslims and Jews.