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

[Silhouette]

There is a wise saying;

"Avoid litigation like the plague" ...even if you have free legal, if you lose you could well have to pay the other party's costs.

Sue...you'll be going down the "religious freedom" road...and courts are a lottery much of the time.

Me, I wouldn't be suing anyone over a cake.

See right there ^^ Proof of exactly what I'm talking about with the LGBT cult's aggression in forcing their dogmatic behavioral principles on christians/muslims/etc. in order to force them to abandon their faith!

They aren't happy going down the block to another cake baker. They are going to file a LAWSUIT to force the muslim to bake that cake against the clear edicts of his faith.

Told you this was a cult movement.

Thanks to bianco at least for the little peek into Pandora's box. Hint to bianco and the rest of the gang: You haven't won yet. This isn't over yet. Might want to keep those stark revelations and veiled threats under wraps until the US Supreme Court has heard this thing. Not everyone worships at the altar of Harvey Milk...

 

[Bumberclyde]

Muslim cake makers should be deported asap.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any complaints filed by LGBT against Muslims for refusing to bake a cake or do photography at a wedding. Can you?

 

[Silhouette]

Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any complaints filed by LGBT against Muslims for refusing to bake a cake or do photography at a wedding. Can you?

Yet. Not yet. Do you think they will be the exception when christians are found to have to make "gay wedding" cakes in violation of Jude 1 and Romans 1 in the Bible? You think muslims will get a pass while other religions who also object are forced to participate in the gay cult values?

 

[KevinWestern]

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.

My view on the whole thing is that if a business opens its doors publicly in the United States, it should try to accommodate any courteous, paying customer that comes through the doors - white, black, gay, female, etc. That is the core spirit of the civil rights act of 1964. But with that said, if a photographer feels uncomfortable shooting at a gay wedding – and there are about a million other photographers to choose from – it’s extremely mean-spirited and un-neighborly to go through all the legal channels to “sue” that business for discrimination. Just move on, people; why would you want to hire a photographer that would do a half-assed job anyways?

As for your example, I think you outline a situation where the customer is clearly harassing the cake maker because I can’t think of any benign reason why someone would need a Muslim baker to bake a cake "with the prophet Muhammad depicted on it" (I mean, lets get real here). I think it's okay for a business owner to refuse service to someone who is clearly there with malicious intent (and that too applies to a gay person targeting a Christian bakery specifically to make the business uncomfortable and to "prove a point").

Apples vs oranges here.

 

[Silhouette]

– it’s extremely mean-spirited and un-neighborly to go through all the legal channels to “sue” that business for discrimination. Just move on, people; why would you want to hire a photographer that would do a half-assed job anyways?

As for your example, I think you outline a situation where the customer is clearly harassing the cake maker because I can’t think of any benign reason why someone would need a Muslim baker to bake a cake "with the prophet Muhammad depicted on it" (I mean, lets get real here). I think it's okay for a business owner to refuse service to someone who is clearly there with malicious intent (and that too applies to a gay person targeting a Christian bakery specifically to make the business uncomfortable and to "prove a point").

Kevin, why didn't you quote and address your response above to bianco's post below? Why won't you gay people confront each other's nastiness? You turn on splinters of the anti gay-marriage people all the time. Why not confront the logs stuck the eyes of the members of your own camp once in awhile?

Below is a direct threat by a gay apologist to sue people they want to force to acknowledge the cult of homosexuality and to force to abandon their own faith which forbids the promotion or enabling of homosexualiy taking over societal values. They want to sue the faithful into forgetting and turning their backs on the lesson of the city of Sodom and all its inhabitants being wiped off the map for exactly what's happening to America today.

Tell bianco how you feel...

There is a wise saying;

"Avoid litigation like the plague" ...even if you have free legal, if you lose you could well have to pay the other party's costs.

Sue...you'll be going down the "religious freedom" road...and courts are a lottery much of the time.

Me, I wouldn't be suing anyone over a cake.

 

[KevinWestern]

Below is a direct threat by a gay apologist to sue people they want to force to acknowledge the cult of homosexuality and to force to abandon their own faith which forbids the promotion or enabling of homosexualiy taking over societal values. They want to sue the faithful into forgetting and turning their backs on the lesson of the city of Sodom and all its inhabitants being wiped off the map for exactly what's happening to America today.

Tell bianco how you feel...

There is a wise saying;

"Avoid litigation like the plague" ...even if you have free legal, if you lose you could well have to pay the other party's costs.

Sue...you'll be going down the "religious freedom" road...and courts are a lottery much of the time.

Me, I wouldn't be suing anyone over a cake.

Hi Silohouette, don't think that will be necessary, lol.

Again, my position is that a US business should be open to ALL paying members of the public (in the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), however I'm not particularly impressed by a gay person who would sue a photographer when there are literally hundreds of other choices they could go with. It's a grey area, for sure.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Given how the more strict forms of Islam forbid playing musical instruments, it's hard to imagine these becomming cake bakers unless very liberal where their observance wouldn't be a thing in the first place.

And for the record, depicting images of Mohammed isn't actually forbidden by Islam. Is a lot of antique art doing so. The thing is it must be done respectfully. But Scripturally nothing says ya can't do it. Just as is often seen in other religions, what the holy book might say, and what's said in the Zeitgeist are sometimes very different.

Distorting a distortion: Depicting Muhammad in Art | Flopping Aces

 

[emilynghiem]

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 and the Bible are included in the teachings of Islam which respect "all sent by God," recognized as the Jewish Torah, the Christian Scriptures, and the Muslim Quran.

so it depends on the Muslim how they personally feel or what they believe about Jesus, and how tolerant they are, or if they have personal issues with Christians or Jesus, etc.

I have Muslim friends who teach Jesus in different ways:
* some like the Christians and recognize Jesus as God incarnated
* some who reject Jesus as a myth perpetuated by Christians who are misled
* some who treat Jesus as Jefferson did, more like a teacher and example of natural laws

 

[emilynghiem]

Below is a direct threat by a gay apologist to sue people they want to force to acknowledge the cult of homosexuality and to force to abandon their own faith which forbids the promotion or enabling of homosexualiy taking over societal values. They want to sue the faithful into forgetting and turning their backs on the lesson of the city of Sodom and all its inhabitants being wiped off the map for exactly what's happening to America today.

Tell bianco how you feel...

There is a wise saying;

"Avoid litigation like the plague" ...even if you have free legal, if you lose you could well have to pay the other party's costs.

Sue...you'll be going down the "religious freedom" road...and courts are a lottery much of the time.

Me, I wouldn't be suing anyone over a cake.

Hi Silohouette, don't think that will be necessary, lol.

Again, my position is that a US business should be open to ALL paying members of the public (in the spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), however I'm not particularly impressed by a gay person who would sue a photographer when there are literally hundreds of other choices they could go with. It's a grey area, for sure.

Dear KevinW and Silhouette:
Maybe what we need is to teach basic respect for civics and civil laws.
If we resolve issues civilly where both sides win, we don't waste public resources on lawsuits where everyone pays more.

If people don't like to be targeted or rejected by people of anti-gay beliefs, neither should they target these specifically for harassment either!

If they want to be treated as everyone else, they should treat all businesses with respect, too, not impose but affiliate freely and not force association. You get what you give.

We need to go back to teaching the Golden Rule, but apply it to Constitutional principles. If you want equal civil rights and respect, it makes sense to practice this standard yourself.

If you hate or harass people, they will likely respond likewise and reject or harass you back.
So quit doing that!

 

[Silhouette]

Given how the more strict forms of Islam forbid playing musical instruments, it's hard to imagine these becomming cake bakers unless very liberal where their observance wouldn't be a thing in the first place.

And for the record, depicting images of Mohammed isn't actually forbidden by Islam. Is a lot of antique art doing so. The thing is it must be done respectfully. But Scripturally nothing says ya can't do it. Just as is often seen in other religions, what the holy book might say, and what's said in the Zeitgeist are sometimes very different.

Distorting a distortion: Depicting Muhammad in Art | Flopping Aces

It' important not to be general about the religion in question, but specific instead to understand which edict of the faith is in question and how it affects the individual's rights to practice freedom of religion.

Let's take homosexuality, for example, since that is the topic at hand. Strawmen are lovely to divert but seriously, the actual concrete topic of homosexuality itself must be examined with respect to religious freedom.

In the Bible we have the passages of Jude 1 and Romans 1 that refer directly to homosexuality as a culture, a plague of behaviors. And we find today that is exactly what they call themselves "culture wars" and what they do; not what they are.

So the Bible says in Jude 1 that you must earnestly contend for the common salvation. Not "sort of" contend or "passively contend" or "think about contending". The command is to action. Failure to act to stave off or to passively enable the overtaking of a culture by the cult of deviant sexual behaviors is an offense in the eyes of God punishable by eternal damnation.

They weren't vague about this. They even offered up the destruction of the entire city of Sodom and all its inhabitants as an example of what will be done to other christians and cultures they live in that they allow this to occur in.

So the mandate is clear. It's concise. And it is specific to homosexuality as a cultural movement. If you fail, as a christian or a muslim, to compassionately but earnestly contend to oppose it, you will go to the pit with them.

Asking a christian or a muslim to disobey this mandate of their faith is the same as asking them or forcing them as a matter of law to abandon their faith altogether. Which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[bianco]

Muslims will do to gays just what they do to Christians. Not bake wedding cakes at all. Unless you know them from mosque and can place your order in arabic, farsi or maybe pashtun you are out of luck. Several bakeries in the area were bought by Muslims who stopped offering wedding cakes.

So far no complaints.

There have been complaints I'm sure but CAIR probably threatened lawsuits. I think on the Ask an Imam website someone said they cannot sell a cake to polytheists ( they consider christians polytheists - idolaters ) or they are partaking in idolatry?

I don't mind them not selling cakes to Christians but I do mind them locking their bathrooms off the interstates - they put signs at their gas stations - out of order bathroom - because of the issue of cleaning up after a non muslim. There were thousands of complaints about this practice because many motorists could not find a bathroom to use! It became common practice for the excuse - bathroom is out of order. The next time I take a road trip I'll update you on whether that is still going on.

No worries...boycott the offending Muslim cake shops, and boycott the offending Muslim gas stations.
Buy some machine guns for security, and use the open air bathrooms nature provides. Watch out for snakes, big cats, spiders, and bears.

Costco sells cakes...all sorts of cakes.
There must be Christian cake shops about.

Make your own cake...or advertise; "Christian bride needs wedding cake made...Muslim cake shop refused her, she's distraught, in tears...please help, she has money to pay."
Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.

It's a brave Muslim cake shop that wants to start a religious war.

 

[bianco]

below is a direct threat by a gay apologist to sue people they want to force to acknowledge the cult of homosexuality and to force to abandon their own faith which forbids the promotion or enabling of homosexualiy taking over societal values. They want to sue the faithful into forgetting and turning their backs on the lesson of the city of sodom and all its inhabitants being wiped off the map for exactly what's happening to america today.

Tell bianco how you feel...

originally posted by bianco

there is a wise saying;

"avoid litigation like the plague" ...even if you have free legal, if you lose you could well have to pay the other party's costs.

Sue...you'll be going down the "religious freedom" road...and courts are a lottery much of the time.

Me, i wouldn't be suing anyone over a cake.

#####

?

Anyway...there are gay Christians.

 

[bianco]

City of Sodom?

Some would call that Sydney Australia...the city of equal rights for all irrespective of gender, religious faith, race, sexual orientation, etc.
Gay marriage is a work in progress...most people seem to agree it should be legal [NZ has made it so], but the govt does not.

Sydney might get wiped off the face of the earth for allowing homosexuality.
If it does, then so be it.

300,000 people attended the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras the other night.

My hairdresser is gay...he's nice man...a friend, he sometimes attends the after parties.
The son of good friends of mine has come out and declared that he is gay.
Known him since birth, he's a good kid.
Should he be put to death?
Nah.

Anyway, there is an oath, written in blood long ago, in 1854;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Rebellion

Swearing Allegiance to the Southern Cross on 1 December 1854 – water-colour by Charles Doudiet. Collection: Art Gallery of Ballarat

Depiction of the oath from Illustrated Australian News 1 August 1888

In the rising tide of anger and resentment amongst the miners, a more militant leader, Peter Lalor, was elected. In swift fashion, a military structure was assembled. Brigades were formed, and captains were appointed. Licences were burned, and on 1 December at Bakery Hill, "The disaffected miners... held a meeting whereat the Australian flag of independence was solemnly consecrated and vows proffered for its defence.",
[16] with the 'Eureka oath' being sworn by Peter Lalor to the affirmation of his fellow demonstrators, who encamped themselves around the flag to resist further licence hunts and harassment by the authorities: "We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties."

#####

Substitute 'disaffected miners' with 'disaffected gay people' ...and well, you get the idea.
At present the gay folk are waving the rainbow flag of love and peace.
Wait til they start waving the flag of 'war' [legally of course] and rebellion, then there'll be big trouble.

Wanna hang my friends for being gay?
Then a war you'll have to be having!

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Jesus is a sacred and revered figure for Muslims. What is your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

My view on the whole thing is that if a business opens its doors publicly in the United States, it should try to accommodate any courteous, paying customer that comes through the doors - white, black, gay, female, etc. That is the core spirit of the civil rights act of 1964. But with that said, if a photographer feels uncomfortable shooting at a gay wedding – and there are about a million other photographers to choose from – it’s extremely mean-spirited and un-neighborly to go through all the legal channels to “sue” that business for discrimination. Just move on, people; why would you want to hire a photographer that would do a half-assed job anyways?

As for your example, I think you outline a situation where the customer is clearly harassing the cake maker because I can’t think of any benign reason why someone would need a Muslim baker to bake a cake "with the prophet Muhammad depicted on it" (I mean, lets get real here). I think it's okay for a business owner to refuse service to someone who is clearly there with malicious intent (and that too applies to a gay person targeting a Christian bakery specifically to make the business uncomfortable and to "prove a point").

Apples vs oranges here.

My view is that the government demanding that people behave the way I want the to is tyranny.

 

[KevinWestern]

My view is that the government demanding that people behave the way I want the to is tyranny.

As right leaning as I can be when it comes to the government, and guns, etc, there are always going to be government restrictions in any sort of functioning society. The government tells you to give X in taxes – right? That’s the government demanding that people behave in a certain way – right? I would LOVE to see taxes drastically reduced, but still realize that there’s a need for a police department, public roads, street lights, and if the government didn’t DEMAND that some taxes get paid you’d have a shitload of freeloaders on your hand.

So are you saying the absolute best society is one where the government doesn't impose ANY rules – whatsoever – on business-owners?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My view is that the government demanding that people behave the way I want the to is tyranny.

As right leaning as I can be when it comes to the government, and guns, etc, there are always going to be government restrictions in any sort of functioning society. The government tells you to give X in taxes – right? That’s the government demanding that people behave in a certain way – right? I would LOVE to see taxes drastically reduced, but still realize that there’s a need for a police department, public roads, street lights, and if the government didn’t DEMAND that some taxes get paid you’d have a shitload of freeloaders on your hand.

So are you saying the absolute best society is one where the government doesn't impose ANY rules – whatsoever – on business-owners?

Damn, just when you showed signs of intelligence.

If you want to address my position, stop blathering about taxes, or prove that I want taxes. (Trust me, the first option will be a lot easier.)

 

[KevinWestern]

My view is that the government demanding that people behave the way I want the to is tyranny.

As right leaning as I can be when it comes to the government, and guns, etc, there are always going to be government restrictions in any sort of functioning society. The government tells you to give X in taxes – right? That’s the government demanding that people behave in a certain way – right? I would LOVE to see taxes drastically reduced, but still realize that there’s a need for a police department, public roads, street lights, and if the government didn’t DEMAND that some taxes get paid you’d have a shitload of freeloaders on your hand.

So are you saying the absolute best society is one where the government doesn't impose ANY rules – whatsoever – on business-owners?

Damn, just when you showed signs of intelligence.

If you want to address my position, stop blathering about taxes, or prove that I want taxes. (Trust me, the first option will be a lot easier.)

I think you misunderstood my angle, anyways...

You said that your "view is that the government demanding that people behave the way [you] want them to is tyranny".

Now - as a question - does this statement of yours apply specifically to the situation where a shop owner is forced to transact with a gay, or is it a general view you hold with regard to government and can be applied to all scenarios?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As right leaning as I can be when it comes to the government, and guns, etc, there are always going to be government restrictions in any sort of functioning society. The government tells you to give X in taxes – right? That’s the government demanding that people behave in a certain way – right? I would LOVE to see taxes drastically reduced, but still realize that there’s a need for a police department, public roads, street lights, and if the government didn’t DEMAND that some taxes get paid you’d have a shitload of freeloaders on your hand.

So are you saying the absolute best society is one where the government doesn't impose ANY rules – whatsoever – on business-owners?

Damn, just when you showed signs of intelligence.

If you want to address my position, stop blathering about taxes, or prove that I want taxes. (Trust me, the first option will be a lot easier.)

I think you misunderstood my angle, anyways...

You said that your "view is that the government demanding that people behave the way [you] want them to is tyranny".

Now - as a question - does this statement of yours apply specifically to the situation where a shop owner is forced to transact with a gay, or is it a general view you hold with regard to government and can be applied to all scenarios?

What is so hard to understand about my position? Did I use a conditional clause?