Should Muslim Cake Makers Be Required to Depict the Prophet Muhammed on a Cake?

[Mojo2]

Personally, I would not enjoy eating something that I forced someone to make. People should be able to refuse service to anyone based on religious beliefs.

Does anyone think Muslims would bake a cake with Jesus on it?

Why not? Jesus is a bigger figure in Islam than even Mohammed.

On this I think a decent respect for veracity requires proof.

Please substantiate your assertion.

 

[Silhouette]

You could ‘sue’ but you’d not get very far.

Given the fact that a Muslim baker doesn’t depict the Prophet Muhammad on cakes as a rule, and that you don’t belong to a particular class of persons, no civil rights or public accommodations laws have been violated, and consequently no lawsuit would be valid.

Even if you belonged to a particular class of persons, no violations would have taken place, as you’re requesting a good or service the baker does not provide in the first place.

Hmm...dodging that one I see. Ok, how about an orthodox jewish caterer refusing to cater a wedding where people want to have pork catered?

Or how about a person who works for a company who is an orthodox jew. Say his boss understands this employee doesn't want to work Fridays for religious reasons: the Shabbat. So lets say a couple employees call in sick one Friday and the boss calls this jew to work and the jew says "no, you know my religious convictions forbid me from working." Can the boss get mad and fire him? Or can an employer refuse to hire an orthodox jew if they want a position filled that may require Friday work?

 

[Silhouette]

You are not allowed to depict the Prophet in a drawing, a painting, or a cake.

Exactly!

But what if a couple of gays or other people wanted a Prophet-Muhammed cake? This is America. Should a muslim be forced to make one in violation of their beliefs?

You see, because christians have very powerful mandates against homosexuality. And those mandates are not just to not be homosexual; they are also to not support it in any way:

Jude 1:

...3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities....

...14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Jude&chapter=1&verse=1

The Bible says that if you stand by homosexuality, not only you, but your entire civilization may be destroyed and you will be sent to the pit of fire along with the sodomites. Requiring a christian to make a "gay wedding" cake is like requiring a muslim to make a Muhammed Cake. Both will result in eternal damnation.

That's a very heavy price to pay for obeying some piddly secular law while you're cruising around in the flesh temporarily.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"I have the right to refuse service to anyone".
If that sign is on the wall, it pretty much sums it up what the bakery's policies are. Should the baker be forced? No. Should he be sued? No. Perhaps the person wanting that image on their cake should go to a bakery that would love to have their business and agree to do so.

But of course you supported the decision in the case of gays suing right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You could ‘sue’ but you’d not get very far.

Given the fact that a Muslim baker doesn’t depict the Prophet Muhammad on cakes as a rule, and that you don’t belong to a particular class of persons, no civil rights or public accommodations laws have been violated, and consequently no lawsuit would be valid.

Even if you belonged to a particular class of persons, no violations would have taken place, as you’re requesting a good or service the baker does not provide in the first place.

Hmm...dodging that one I see. Ok, how about an orthodox jewish caterer refusing to cater a wedding where people want to have pork catered?

Or how about a person who works for a company who is an orthodox jew. Say his boss understands this employee doesn't want to work Fridays for religious reasons: the Shabbat. So lets say a couple employees call in sick one Friday and the boss calls this jew to work and the jew says "no, you know my religious convictions forbid me from working." Can the boss get mad and fire him? Or can an employer refuse to hire an orthodox jew if they want a position filled that may require Friday work?

It’s not a ‘dodge’ to point out the idiocy of your question.

And then you compound your idiocy, as an orthodox Jewish caterer wouldn’t be selling pork in the first place. One can’t ‘refuse’ to sell a product he doesn’t sell to begin with, the notion is utter nonsense.

Obviously your thread is in response to the baker in Colorado found to be in violation of that state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.

The difference between the Colorado case and the hypothetical situations you’ve contrived is that the baker in Colorado – as a consequence of his usual, standard business practice – would bake wedding cakes to order, for a specific couple getting married. By refusing to provide a good or service usually provided to the public in general because of the sexual orientation of the potential patrons, the baker was in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.

Had the gay couple requested of the baker to design them wedding rings to celebrate their marriage, the baker could have refused, not because of the sexual orientation of the patrons, but because that’s a good and service he does not provide – just as a Muslim baker does not sell cakes with images of Mohammed, or an orthodox Jewish caterer does not sell pork.

Last, the baker in Colorado has no argument with regard to refusing to sell goods or services to gay patrons as a consequence of his ‘religious beliefs,’ as one may not use tenets of his faith as an ‘excuse’ to not obey an otherwise just law, such as the Colorado anti-discrimination law, and as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith.

 

[Silhouette]

The difference between the Colorado case and the hypothetical situations you’ve contrived is that the baker in Colorado – as a consequence of his usual, standard business practice – would bake wedding cakes to order, for a specific couple getting married. By refusing to provide a good or service usually provided to the public in general because of the sexual orientation of the potential patrons, the baker was in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.

Not if the sexual orientation is homosexual: a thing christians will be condemned to hell forever if they support or look away from while it runs rampant.

Your wobbly secular law supporting an odd behavioral group is going to come up against this, which is thousands of years older, religious and protected by the Constitution:

Jude 1:

...3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities....

...14. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18. How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21. Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life

These aren't trivial questions. A christian's faith not only forbids homosexuality. It also forbids standing by while its catchy nature/fierce advocating spreads like wildfire. It is this nature that caused whole cities to be destroyed by the hand of the christian God. These aren't venial sins or trivia in the christian faith. Supporting homosexuality by passively standing by or even giving it a leg up are crimes that get you the pit of fire for eternity.

That's why I gave the muslim example in the title of this thread: to drive home the gravity of what christians face if they are forced to obey a secular law recognizing the coupling of sodomites. This isn't a slap on the wrist with a ruler or 30 days in the hole. This is an enternity in The Pit you are asking them to commit to in order to support "gay marriage" by making a cake, taking pictures etc. You are forcing them to violate a core edict of their faith, a 'grave religious felony' if you will...

Uh, Pope Francais? Care to weigh in or are you too busy with pomp and circumstance and human political chicanery?

 

[Silhouette]

Probably best not to go 'depicting Muhammed' and naming your teddy bear Muhammed in Africa;

Teacher facing 40 lashes over teddy bear 'insult' - World - smh.com.au

2007

Teacher facing 40 lashes over teddy bear 'insult'

A British primary school teacher is in a Sudanese jail facing 40 lashes if she's convicted of insulting Islam's prophet Muhammed by letting children name a teddy bear after him.

Gillian Gibbons who's 54 is in a Khartoum prison cell after being arrested on suspicion of blasphemy on Sunday.

Gibbons who taught primary age children at the Unity High School in Khartoum allowed her class of seven-year-olds to name a teddy bear Mohammed as part of a lesson about animal habitats.

The name Mohammed is sacred to Islamic philosophy and the penalty for blasphemy is 40 lashes, a large fine or a jail term.

Is your argument "because religions are silly sometimes, people shouldn't abide by them or have their religious views respected"?

I guess we can do away with that pesky 1st Amendment. Of course, that will mean that the religion of LGBT will come under the same type of lack of protection too. Careful what you wish for.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll ask this new question again: Should a muslim cake decorator be forced to build a "gay wedding" cake? Yes or no and why or why not?

 

[Silhouette]

Personally, I would not enjoy eating something that I forced someone to make. People should be able to refuse service to anyone based on religious beliefs.

Does anyone think Muslims would bake a cake with Jesus on it?

Incorrect.

If a business is in a jurisdiction subject to public accommodations laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion, gender, race, or sexual orientation, the business owner may not refuse to accommodate a member of the general public based on the owner’s ‘religious beliefs.’ See Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990).

Does Oregon v Smith include forcing a muslim to make a "gay wedding" cake for Harvey Milk fans?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes you are. The belief you can't is one of many made-up, not-Scriptural things that have become mixed in with Islam. Happens in most all religions.

Only the difference is that there is a specific scriptural mandate in Jude 1 that tells people to earnestly contend to defeat a homosexual culture and to teach aversion of homosexuality in order to escape the pit of fire and compete destruction of civilization.

So this isn't some "tweaked" scripture. Nor is it about venial sin that will be absolved at confession or a 2 day stint in purgatory. This is a cardinal sin. Cardinal sins are not allowed of those who intend to stay in their faith and escape the pits of fire.

So forcing a person, christian or muslim, who has in the core of their faith the stories and accounts of whole cities wiped off the map for refusing to rebuff the homosexual lifestyle and practices, to acquiesce to them or be put in jail, or open to destitution via a lawsuit is unthinkable. It is poised to create gross psychological suffering and intolerable apprehension in the faithful.

Imagine choosing to go to the poor house or the pit of fire for eternity? Those are your only two choices. Freedom of religion has to trump in this situation.

Seriously, do any of you believe a muslim should be required by law to build a cake for a "gay wedding"?

 

[Silhouette]

The libs are awfully silent about whether or not a muslim should be forced to bake a "gay wedding" cake.

I knew this would be the reaction! ..lol..

 

[Sunni Man]

Depicting the prophet Mohammed isn't forbidden by Islam. It's one of those things that's made it's way into consciousness as being forbidden, but it's not.

Incorrect.

Depicting any person, including prophet Muhammad, is against Islamic theology. ...

 

[Sunni Man]

Why not? Jesus is a bigger figure in Islam than even Mohammed.

Incorrect

All of the prophets in Islam are considered equal.....including both Jesus and Muhammad. ...

 

[Silhouette]

And now for your regularly scheduled strawman diversion.

How about answering the question instead?

Should a muslim be required as a matter of law to build a "gay wedding" cake? Yes, or no?

 

[emilynghiem]

I ask this not only for a cake making company which is expressly muslim, but also for any private cakemaker not publicly affiliated with a Muslim company but who on religious principle must refuse to depict the Prophet Muhammed in any way shape or form.

If I, for any reason, demanded for my wedding or some other event that a muslim cake maker make me a cake with the prophet Muhammed's personage depicted on it, can I sue that person for not making that cake for me?

Discuss.

How about dancing PIGS on there?
Can I have bacon dip with my appetizers served by their caterers?

Actually the Bakeries may get smart and start hiring out the work they can't do
to subcontractors, so they can continue to make money instead of fighting over
cakes at gay weddings.

 

[emilynghiem]

And now for your regularly scheduled strawman diversion.

How about answering the question instead?

Should a muslim be required as a matter of law to build a "gay wedding" cake? Yes, or no?

Seriously, I don't see any Muslims or Black churches getting harassed over anti-gay policies.

Only WHITE businesses and church leaders.

When the Black pastors stood up against Obama denouncing his change in supporting gay marriage, nobody responded.

So if you don't want to be harassed for anti-gay views, either be Black or Muslim or something other than White and you will be tolerated as a minority view.

=================================================================
Note: I recognize that if I were a White Male I would not be allowed to say this without being attacked.
I have the freedom to say this as an Asian Democrat who is somehow allowed to make racists jokes or comments because I am a liberal Democrat.
And I am allowed to be enslaved because I am Asian, so I have the right to complain about that, though I won't be heard either, since it is okay to enslave Asians, just not African Americans. Apparently!
I have double the privilege of being a minority, being respected as White, but having freedom to say things that most White Males can't say without getting slammed.

As an Asian I even have the freedom to subject myself to slavery or abuse on one hand, or go along with the White privilege and business/political class that oppresses other,
while Black people can't either be poor or rich, be liberal Democrat or conservative Republican without getting blamed either way!

This is really weird how this works, and I haven't figured out all the rules yet, or why I am allowed to break them and others aren't!
I'm pretty sure if I made statements either way about these gay cakes and gay weddings, I could get away with whatever I said.
Because people would assume I am just speaking for myself as some sort of minority that isn't in power,
and do not pose any threat speaking on behalf of some oppressive class which I don't resemble enough.

 

[Peterf]

I ask this not only for a cake making company which is expressly muslim, but also for any private cakemaker not publicly affiliated with a Muslim company but who on religious principle must refuse to depict the Prophet Muhammed in any way shape or form.

If I, for any reason, demanded for my wedding or some other event that a muslim cake maker make me a cake with the prophet Muhammed's personage depicted on it, can I sue that person for not making that cake for me?

Discuss.

Since no one knows what Mohammed (peace be upon him) actually looked like it is impossible for him to be portrayed, on a cake or anywhere else.

I suppose a generalised picture of an Arab raping a 9 yea old girl could be made bu that would hardly seem appropriate for a wedding cake. (Unless of course you are an old Muslim about to wed a 9 year old).

 

[Peterf]

I ask this not only for a cake making company which is expressly muslim, but also for any private cakemaker not publicly affiliated with a Muslim company but who on religious principle must refuse to depict the Prophet Muhammed in any way shape or form.

If I, for any reason, demanded for my wedding or some other event that a muslim cake maker make me a cake with the prophet Muhammed's personage depicted on it, can I sue that person for not making that cake for me?

Discuss.

You are not allowed to depict the Prophet in a drawing, a painting, or a cake.

"Not allowed"? Do you really think that we non-Muslims are bound by Sharia law?

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not? Jesus is a bigger figure in Islam than even Mohammed.

Incorrect

All of the prophets in Islam are considered equal.....including both Jesus and Muhammad. ...

Dear Sunni:
Do you believe the Constitutional laws were "Sent by God" through the "Founding Fathers"?

If Mohammad were the last prophet, is that just under the Biblical lineage.
While the Founding Fathers/Constitution could still be "teachings" given to the GENTILES
who are under NATURAL LAWS (which is a separate fold from the scriptural tribes of Christian Muslim and Jew)

What is your belief on this?
If Constitutional principles are divinely inspire by the God of Nature
aren't these equally to be received and respected by Muslim followers?

 

[emilynghiem]

I ask this not only for a cake making company which is expressly muslim, but also for any private cakemaker not publicly affiliated with a Muslim company but who on religious principle must refuse to depict the Prophet Muhammed in any way shape or form.

If I, for any reason, demanded for my wedding or some other event that a muslim cake maker make me a cake with the prophet Muhammed's personage depicted on it, can I sue that person for not making that cake for me?

Discuss.

Since no one knows what Mohammed (peace be upon him) actually looked like it is impossible for him to be portrayed, on a cake or anywhere else.

I suppose a generalised picture of an Arab raping a 9 yea old girl could be made bu that would hardly seem appropriate for a wedding cake. (Unless of course you are an old Muslim about to wed a 9 year old).

Dear Peterf: Are you sure that Mohammad really consummated that relationship?
I was told that the young daughter was offered as a ceremonial gift to Mohammad,
as a symbolic gesture. It was a cultural honor, but I am not sure if the sex was part of it.

Are you sure?

I don't agree with this practice, especially not today with child brides abused or dying from consummating such relationships.

Back then, I'm not sure what was done.

I think this practice should be counted as outdated as the Indian ritual of burning widows on funeral pyres, which is a crime like any other form of murder; but when it is committed, gets blamed on Hindu or Indian culture the same way forced marriage is blamed on Islam.

It is more the abuse of religion or cultural tradition of patriarchal control,
and not the religion per se. There are still Christians who abuse their wives
claiming male dominance, which is still "religious abuse" regardless of denomination.