The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[Ken]

Thank you. This is helpful to understand where you are coming from. It seems to me though that you are projecting specific motives and viewpoints onto others that are likely far from correct. Did the Colorado wedding cake baker really tell the gay couple "I refuse to serve you because I disapprove of who you are."? Or did he say "I cannot in good conscience become a participant in an occasion that is a mockery of God's plan for marriage and that is a celebration of wickedness?

I don't feel that you've given me a straight answer yet on whether you believe it would be morally right to provide a custom decorated cake for a serious dedication to Lucifer, or whether you believe it would be morally acceptable to provide a cake or a venue for a wedding between a 13 year old and a 60 year old. Or would it have been morally acceptable, in years gone by, to have provided custom party supplies for a celebration of a lynching or massacre?

1. I have no idea what the bakery told the customers and I don't think it really matters. We are both putting words into their mouths. The fact of the matter is that it comes across as religious bigotry.

2. My straight answer to your questions about various cake designs is that seriously? it's just some silly cake and frosting. The cakes are not the issue.

Regarding your examples once again. Getting married at age 13 is not legal in my state of Washington. I don't know the laws of other states but in WA you need parental permission to get married at age 17 and you need a family court to grant permission for any marriages under age 17. No family court in the state would authorize a marriage between a 13 year old and a 60 year old. But if they did, whether or not I sell them a cake for their wedding or a case of Coca Cola is trivial and peripheral to the issue at hand. My personal approval or disapproval is kind of irrelevant. I don't think God says you can sell them groceries but not a wedding cake. Or that you have to express your disapproval in thus and such a way. And if I wanted to disapprove I would do so by making a stink about the fact that some judge granted them a marriage license. Which is where the real problem lies, not in the cake decorations. File a complaint with whatever office reviews judicial conduct. Write a letter to the editor. Call your state legislator and make a stink. That is how you effectively take a stand against child marriage. But in the end, if the marriage was all legal I would probably just sell them the cake and then call my state legislator again and complain again about how this was even legal. Maybe invite in the TV cameras and ask "Why am I even making a wedding cake for a child marriage? What kind of state is this? Are you all OK with this? Are we living in Somalia or the United States?"

With respect to the devil worshiping cake. I would not take them seriously because 99% of this stuff is just clever secular folks doing it to point out the hypocrisy of rules that favor religion. The folks who want to put up displays to the Church of Satan and so forth next to the Christian creches and Jewish Menorahs that sometimes get displayed on public property. They really don't believe in some Church of Satan. They are just trying to force authorities to respect the separation of church and state by underscoring the hypocrisy. But if they really want their Satan cake I wouldn't much care one way or the other. It's just flour and frosting and all very silly. Satan isn't going to open up some door from the underworld just because you decorated a cake with his face on it. No one cares.

With respect to the racist cake. I would have a long conversation with them about racism and racist symbols. I don't mind having these conversations and have had them many times with students. I'm always curious where people are coming from and happy to have that conversation. I would say "convince me this isn't about racism." They would most likely get annoyed or embarrassed and leave because after 13 years of working in the old confederacy as a school teacher I can talk for hours about racism and confederate symbols. But if it was some stunt to try and generate a lawsuit it would go nowhere as racists and revanchist confederates are not a protected class.

What do you think about the woman last year in Mississippi who refused to allow a mixed race couple to hold a wedding reception on her property based on her religious beliefs? That was in the news last year. Is that different or the same? She backpedaled after a tidal wave of bad publicity. Was she right and owed deference when she said on video that they don't do gay marriages or mixed race marriages due to their Christian faith. Was she right about one but not the other? How do we know which is a legitimate Christian belief and which is just racism?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-v ... d=65356377

[Grace]

Thank you. This is helpful to understand where you are coming from. It seems to me though that you are projecting specific motives and viewpoints onto others that are likely far from correct. Did the Colorado wedding cake baker really tell the gay couple "I refuse to serve you because I disapprove of who you are."? Or did he say "I cannot in good conscience become a participant in an occasion that is a mockery of God's plan for marriage and that is a celebration of wickedness?

No the Colorado baker DID NOT tell the gay couple "I refuse to serve you because I disapprove of who you are". That statement by Ken is a lie. The Colorado baker served gay people many times. The baker considered his cake decorating as artistic expressions and was opposed to being forced to use his artistic abilities to make something that violated his conscience.

1. I have no idea what the bakery told the customers and I don't think it really matters. We are both putting words into their mouths. The fact of the matter is that it comes across as religious bigotry.

If you had no idea what the bakery told the customers why did you make the statement that the baker said "I refuse to serve you because I disapprove of who you are".

I suppose if someone comes to a Christian artist and wants themselves painted nude and the artist refuses, they are coming across as religious bigots.

[Ken]

I suppose if someone comes to a Christian artist and wants themselves painted nude and the artist refuses, they are coming across as religious bigots.

Does that Christian artist in your hypothetical example do nude portraits of straight clients and refuse to do them for gay clients? Because that is what we are talking about here.

In any event I'd consider that prude not bigoted. There are plenty of Christian artists throughout history who had no problem doing nudes, even in religious imagery. This is Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel at the Vatican. How many nudes can you count?

[Josh]

1. I have no idea what the bakery told the customers and I don't think it really matters. We are both putting words into their mouths. The fact of the matter is that it comes across as religious bigotry.

It's a matter of public record and was widely reported on. You seem to desire to be wilfully ignorant of the matter.

What do you think about the woman last year in Mississippi who refused to allow a mixed race couple to hold a wedding reception on her property based on her religious beliefs? That was in the news last year. Is that different or the same? She backpedaled after a tidal wave of bad publicity. Was she right and owed deference when she said on video that they don't do gay marriages or mixed race marriages due to their Christian faith. Was she right about one but not the other? How do we know which is a legitimate Christian belief and which is just racism?

Homosexuality is about two men wanting to engage in disgusting, deviant acts with one another that spread HIV, AIDS, other diseases, and is against God's law and against nature.

To compare this with people God created of many different races is highly offensive and disgusting. The Bible doesn't teach against people of different ethnic groups marrying, indeed, it has many examples of doing so. The Bible teaches very strongly against homosexuality and has no example of people who are "gay married".

[temporal1]

Ken, I am seriously interested in your viewpoint on this. I'm not trying to trap you, just trying to see if we have any common ground that we can start from to try to understand each other.

Sure. I grew up in the Mennonite Church before the merge that became MCUSA and my father became a Mennonite minister later in life after I left home. My huge extended family has a variety of ministers, professors farmers, etc. Some ultra-conservative (politically) some very liberal. After I got married my wife's medical career took us to Waco TX. She grew up Catholic and wasn't particularly interested in the Mennonite games and clannishness of the church and we eventually settled on Episcopal as a compromise we were comfortable with and made some very good friends in the Episcopal Church there.

One of the most distasteful things about living in an intensely Southern Baptist community like Waco is how performative all the Evangelical Christianity is. It is always aggressively in your face. Public prayers at football games, school board meetings, graduations, faculty meetings at a public HS, etc. Cheerleaders holding up bible verse signs. The big local Baptist megachurch youth groups would produce color-coded t-shirts and all wear them on the same day at HS so everyone would know who the cool Christian kids were and who wasn't. They dominated the clubs, student government, sports, etc. But is very alienating to every kid who isn't part of that group. The kids of other faiths, and those who just aren't the popular crowd. In a city with 200 churches it isn't enough to put up Christian creches in the church front yards at Christmas we have to have a battle about putting one in front of city hall as well. And put a 10 Commandments monument in front of the courthouse even though at best only 2 of the 10 Commandments have any basis in law. I find it all the opposite of the teachings of Jesus about how we are supposed to pray in secret not perform in public, and treat our neighbors and strangers in our midst with love and generosity. Its about "look at me" rather than being generous and loving. And in Waco it's the same strain of Christianity that violently supported 100 years of Jim Crow segregation and is utterly untroubled by racism that remains within the community.

Other faiths have their own performative elements. Hasidic Jews with all their special rules. Muslims with the dietary rules and rules about dress. The focus can slip to "Look at me God, how devout I am" "Or Look at me general public, how devout we are" rather than asking: "how should we treat others?

I find the best parts of Christianity to be those that focus on how we should treat others. With love and charity and generosity. And the worst parts of Christianity to be the judgmental performative aspects. Everyone. And I mean absolutely everyone picks and chooses which aspects of Christianity they wish to follow. Some follow a vow of poverty and turn inward like the monastic societies. Others spend their time evangelizing on street corners. Some focus on outward appearances. And others pick specific narrow teachings to focus their lives around. Speaking in tongues, handling snakes, protesting abortion, helping refugees, etc. etc. Every denomination does the same thing to some extent. And we all have our own personal strengths and traits that we struggle with.

Myself I struggle with being judgmental. As a teacher this can be a bad thing. When faced with a difficult and trying student I sometimes have to remind myself "this is someone's child who loves them." And I have remind myself that many kids live unsafe lives with abusive parents, dangerous families, economic uncertainty and even hunger. And that maybe learning the Krebs Cycle isn't the most important thing in this child's life today. Or when I'm driving around my own city and see homeless encampments under freeway bridges I find myself being judgmental and intolerant and wishing the city would just clean it all up and chase them away. Or back in Texas the obnoxious idiots rolling coal in their tricked out F250s with the confederate flags in back blasting around town full of road rage. Being charitable and generous can be a struggle.

I have a cousin, now deceased, who was a very conservative Mennonite minister. Conservative politically not in Menno terms. I think they were Conservative Conference. He was a big huge burly guy who made the focus of his ministry to be anti-LGBT. He devoted thousands of hours to that one mission. Fighting against other ministers who were more tolerant within their own churches. Trying to get other ministers expelled or disciplined. Going to school every school board meeting to rail against trans kids using the bathroom. Campaigning against gay marriage. He would become enraged and shout down any others who disagreed. Red faced, veins bulging. Full of spite and hate while always quoting verses from memory. It was not a good look for him or Christianity. People found him terrifying. And I would think to myself: "Out of all the injustice and suffering and violence in the world, this is what you want to focus your life on? Hating the most vulnerable among us who just want to be left alone? Is that the picture of Christianity that you want to present to the outside world?

So when I see these sorts of things crop up in the news. The wedding cake baker who decides to tell a gay couple "I refuse to serve you because I disapprove of who you are" I know that it comes across as being judgmental and intolerant and uncharitable. It is saying "my disapproval is more important than helping my customers, who are probably my neighbors, celebrate a day that is important to them. And for that reason it comes across (at least to the outside world) as being performative. Publicly expressing my disapproval is more important to me than simply helping my neighbors or customers.

And since we are talking about the decline in Christianity. It is this culture war stuff that I honestly think is accelerating that decline. Along with the vast majority of evangelical church leaders who cast their lot entirely with Trump. I work with young people every day and when they see that sort of thing they just roll their eyes and want no part of it at all. If you live in a closed Menno world full of youth who are carefully curated to be carbon copies of their conservative parents you may not see it. But in the wider outside world, Christianity frankly looks angry, intolerant, bigoted, and ignorant. Especially to a large majority of youth who tend not to hate or disapprove of their LGBT classmates. Even the right wing Southern Baptist ones in Texas. They really don't. And who, like most youth, earnestly seek to make the world a better place.

So there you have it. I think the angry intolerant and political aspects of Christianity are what is driving it's decline in this country. I think Trump represented peak right wing political Christianity. Or Christian nationality. Whatever you want to call it. And much of the rest of the country took a good 4-year look at it and decided they wanted to have nothing of it. Every year the country becomes more diverse, less white, more urban, and more tolerant. If Christianity wants to thrive and survive as a dominant faith, it needs to learn how to swim in those waters, not just Trump-land where it is speaking only to the faithful.

Thank you.
This is helpful to understand where you are coming from. It seems to me though that you are projecting specific motives and viewpoints onto others that are likely far from correct.

Did the Colorado wedding cake baker really tell the gay couple "I refuse to serve you because I disapprove of who you are."?
Or did he say "I cannot in good conscience become a participant in an occasion that is a mockery of God's plan for marriage and that is a celebration of wickedness?

I don't feel that you've given me a straight answer yet on whether you believe it would be morally right to provide a custom decorated cake for a serious dedication to Lucifer, or whether you believe it would be morally acceptable to provide a cake or a venue for a wedding between a 13 year old and a 60 year old. Or would it have been morally acceptable, in years gone by, to have provided custom party supplies for a celebration of a lynching or massacre?

It’s the dog whistle effect. the internet is efficient with it. black+white. painting with a broad brush, etc.
educators should be warning+educating against it, not propagating it. however, this is not uncommon. it’s “standard issue” gov school.

Ken, you seem to have had a number of life experiences, unfortunately, your frequent takeaway is identifying enemies,
“us versus them,” instead of a more thoughtful reflection on balance.

i agree with ken_s, there is a broad group of humanity that falls comfortably between the 2 groups you admire or loathe.
including Christians, which you specially criticize - unless they have submitted to the prevailing secular script, then, they’re A-ok. i believe this was pretty much hillary’s message to Christians, submit to the world, you’ll be fine. this, as she made a failed bid to become a Methodist pastor. her book of devotions couldn’t be published, i think plagiarism was cited (?)

in your brief autobio to ken_s you did not mention the early complaint you had with your father when you were a teen over a girlfriend?? (you posted about it somewhere.) altho decades have passed, you continue to harbor ill will over something that commonly happens between teens and their parents.

i’m sorry for the world.

[Ken]

Ken, you seem to have had a number of life experiences, unfortunately, your frequent takeaway is identifying enemies,
“us versus them,” instead of a more thoughtful reflection on balance.

i agree with ken_s, there is a broad group of humanity that falls comfortably between the 2 groups you admire or loathe.
including Christians, which you specially criticize - unless they have submitted to the prevailing secular script, then, they’re A-ok. i believe this was pretty much hillary’s message to Christians, submit to the world, you’ll be fine. this, as she made a failed bid to become a Methodist pastor. her book of devotions couldn’t be published, i think plagiarism was cited (?)

in your brief autobio to ken_s you did not mention the early complaint you had with your father when you were a teen over a girlfriend?? (you posted about it somewhere.) altho decades have passed, you continue to harbor ill will over something that commonly happens between teens and their parents.

i’m sorry for the world.

I loath no one. And nothing I have written here suggests otherwise.

I have encountered many self-professed Christians over the years who reflect very poorly on Christianity and will sometimes point that out. As for my father when I was a teen? You must have me mixed up with someone else. My parents were ordinary strict parents, nothing unusual. Certainly nothing abusive like the stories of CA upbringings that are so common here. Like most people they have grown over the years and are much more relaxed with their grandchildren.

The loathing and judgement I see around here mostly comes from you and Josh and a few others who are intolerant of those with whom you disagree or disapprove.

[temporal1]

Ken, you seem to have had a number of life experiences, unfortunately, your frequent takeaway is identifying enemies,
“us versus them,” instead of a more thoughtful reflection on balance.

i agree with ken_s, there is a broad group of humanity that falls comfortably between the 2 groups you admire or loathe.
including Christians, which you specially criticize - unless they have submitted to the prevailing secular script, then, they’re A-ok. i believe this was pretty much hillary’s message to Christians, submit to the world, you’ll be fine. this, as she made a failed bid to become a Methodist pastor. her book of devotions couldn’t be published, i think plagiarism was cited (?)

in your brief autobio to ken_s you did not mention the early complaint you had with your father when you were a teen over a girlfriend?? (you posted about it somewhere.) altho decades have passed, you continue to harbor ill will over something that commonly happens between teens and their parents.

i’m sorry for the world.

I loath no one. And nothing I have written here suggests otherwise.

I have encountered many self-professed Christians over the years who reflect very poorly on Christianity and will sometimes point that out. As for my father when I was a teen? You must have me mixed up with someone else. My parents were ordinary strict parents, nothing unusual. Certainly nothing abusive like the stories of CA upbringings that are so common here. Like most people they have grown over the years and are much more relaxed with their grandchildren.

The loathing and judgement I see around here mostly comes from you and Josh and a few others who are intolerant of those with whom you disagree or disapprove.

so you say.

the search function doesn’t seem to be working, but as i recall, you posted about your parents and childhood, not a lot, but you mentioned some disagreements - nothing to suggest abuse. nothing to suggest anything unusual. just teen resentments.
a little about your father becoming a M pastor. it’s not important.

this forum has members/visiting members with negative church experiences. it’s not unusual.

different members have addressed you directly regarding your evident interest in this forum. not limited to -
Josh invests in attempting to share some facts with you that you dislike. Grace provides sources to reflect different views. i loathe what’s happening in public schools, not new or different with you.

with the pandemic, are many teachers devoting so much time to personal internet interests? forums and social media?
i’ve heard all my life teachers are so busy in class and with work they take home, this would not be possible.
i’ve read the pandemic has increased those responsibilities.
http://griffineducationenterprises.com/ ... ypical-day

my grdaughter is in remote 7th grade. her days are long, then homework. church. extra activities.

she definitely hears all the messages you are intent she receives. i pray she receives more than that. and chooses wisely.

[ken_sylvania]

1. I have no idea what the bakery told the customers and I don't think it really matters. We are both putting words into their mouths. The fact of the matter is that it comes across as religious bigotry.

To some, it does come across that way. To others, it doesn't.

2. My straight answer to your questions about various cake designs is that seriously? it's just some silly cake and frosting. The cakes are not the issue.

Regarding your examples once again. Getting married at age 13 is not legal in my state of Washington. I don't know the laws of other states but in WA you need parental permission to get married at age 17 and you need a family court to grant permission for any marriages under age 17. No family court in the state would authorize a marriage between a 13 year old and a 60 year old. But if they did, whether or not I sell them a cake for their wedding or a case of Coca Cola is trivial and peripheral to the issue at hand. My personal approval or disapproval is kind of irrelevant. I don't think God says you can sell them groceries but not a wedding cake. Or that you have to express your disapproval in thus and such a way. And if I wanted to disapprove I would do so by making a stink about the fact that some judge granted them a marriage license. Which is where the real problem lies, not in the cake decorations. File a complaint with whatever office reviews judicial conduct. Write a letter to the editor. Call your state legislator and make a stink. That is how you effectively take a stand against child marriage. But in the end, if the marriage was all legal I would probably just sell them the cake and then call my state legislator again and complain again about how this was even legal. Maybe invite in the TV cameras and ask "Why am I even making a wedding cake for a child marriage? What kind of state is this? Are you all OK with this? Are we living in Somalia or the United States?"

How is this type of reaction not being judgmental, intolerant and uncharitable? Are you not clearly saying "my disapproval is more important than helping my customer celebrate and enjoy a day that is important to them? Is this type of reaction perhaps even more performative than a simple refusal to make a cake to celebrate the occasion?

With respect to the devil worshiping cake. I would not take them seriously because 99% of this stuff is just clever secular folks doing it to point out the hypocrisy of rules that favor religion. The folks who want to put up displays to the Church of Satan and so forth next to the Christian creches and Jewish Menorahs that sometimes get displayed on public property. They really don't believe in some Church of Satan. They are just trying to force authorities to respect the separation of church and state by underscoring the hypocrisy. But if they really want their Satan cake I wouldn't much care one way or the other. It's just flour and frosting and all very silly. Satan isn't going to open up some door from the underworld just because you decorated a cake with his face on it. No one cares.

Once again, you sidestepped my question about the declaration of loyalty to Lucifer, and my clarification that I am referring to an instance in which the customer is seriously a devil worshiper. There is real Satan worship and witchcraft that goes on in this country.

With respect to the racist cake. I would have a long conversation with them about racism and racist symbols. I don't mind having these conversations and have had them many times with students. I'm always curious where people are coming from and happy to have that conversation. I would say "convince me this isn't about racism." They would most likely get annoyed or embarrassed and leave because after 13 years of working in the old confederacy as a school teacher I can talk for hours about racism and confederate symbols. But if it was some stunt to try and generate a lawsuit it would go nowhere as racists and revanchist confederates are not a protected class.

And again, you sidestepped my question.
Supposing the cake was about racism. Why would you have a problem making a cake with a racist message on it? After all, you're not racist yourself. It's just some silly icing and cake. Sure you don't agree with the message on the cake but why not be tolerant and make it for your customer?

Now, supposing you do have this conversation. Is this not just as intolerant and performative as if you were to just say "I can't in good conscience make a cake celebrating something I consider wrong."?

What do you think about the woman last year in Mississippi who refused to allow a mixed race couple to hold a wedding reception on her property based on her religious beliefs? That was in the news last year. Is that different or the same? She backpedaled after a tidal wave of bad publicity. Was she right and owed deference when she said on video that they don't do gay marriages or mixed race marriages due to their Christian faith. Was she right about one but not the other? How do we know which is a legitimate Christian belief and which is just racism?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-v ... d=65356377

I suspect this woman did hold a genuine belief that mixed race marriages were wrong. I also suspect that she had never given a lot of thought to why she believed them to be wrong. I would guess that she had been taught that, and never really questioned it. It would have been interesting to engage in conversation with her to find out what her belief was based on.
I don't know all of her reasons for changing her position on the matter, but I would hope it was based on more than just embarrassment and financial reasons. I think that in general it is harmful to society when people are forced to act in violation of their consciences, even when those consciences are misguided, although I would concede that there are some exceptions. I don't have a clear answer on how to decide what those exceptions should be.

[Ken]

1. I have no idea what the bakery told the customers and I don't think it really matters. We are both putting words into their mouths. The fact of the matter is that it comes across as religious bigotry.

To some, it does come across that way. To others, it doesn't.

2. My straight answer to your questions about various cake designs is that seriously? it's just some silly cake and frosting. The cakes are not the issue.

Regarding your examples once again. Getting married at age 13 is not legal in my state of Washington. I don't know the laws of other states but in WA you need parental permission to get married at age 17 and you need a family court to grant permission for any marriages under age 17. No family court in the state would authorize a marriage between a 13 year old and a 60 year old. But if they did, whether or not I sell them a cake for their wedding or a case of Coca Cola is trivial and peripheral to the issue at hand. My personal approval or disapproval is kind of irrelevant. I don't think God says you can sell them groceries but not a wedding cake. Or that you have to express your disapproval in thus and such a way. And if I wanted to disapprove I would do so by making a stink about the fact that some judge granted them a marriage license. Which is where the real problem lies, not in the cake decorations. File a complaint with whatever office reviews judicial conduct. Write a letter to the editor. Call your state legislator and make a stink. That is how you effectively take a stand against child marriage. But in the end, if the marriage was all legal I would probably just sell them the cake and then call my state legislator again and complain again about how this was even legal. Maybe invite in the TV cameras and ask "Why am I even making a wedding cake for a child marriage? What kind of state is this? Are you all OK with this? Are we living in Somalia or the United States?"

How is this type of reaction not being judgmental, intolerant and uncharitable? Are you not clearly saying "my disapproval is more important than helping my customer celebrate and enjoy a day that is important to them? Is this type of reaction perhaps even more performative than a simple refusal to make a cake to celebrate the occasion?

With respect to the devil worshiping cake. I would not take them seriously because 99% of this stuff is just clever secular folks doing it to point out the hypocrisy of rules that favor religion. The folks who want to put up displays to the Church of Satan and so forth next to the Christian creches and Jewish Menorahs that sometimes get displayed on public property. They really don't believe in some Church of Satan. They are just trying to force authorities to respect the separation of church and state by underscoring the hypocrisy. But if they really want their Satan cake I wouldn't much care one way or the other. It's just flour and frosting and all very silly. Satan isn't going to open up some door from the underworld just because you decorated a cake with his face on it. No one cares.

Once again, you sidestepped my question about the declaration of loyalty to Lucifer, and my clarification that I am referring to an instance in which the customer is seriously a devil worshiper. There is real Satan worship and witchcraft that goes on in this country.

With respect to the racist cake. I would have a long conversation with them about racism and racist symbols. I don't mind having these conversations and have had them many times with students. I'm always curious where people are coming from and happy to have that conversation. I would say "convince me this isn't about racism." They would most likely get annoyed or embarrassed and leave because after 13 years of working in the old confederacy as a school teacher I can talk for hours about racism and confederate symbols. But if it was some stunt to try and generate a lawsuit it would go nowhere as racists and revanchist confederates are not a protected class.

And again, you sidestepped my question.
Supposing the cake was about racism. Why would you have a problem making a cake with a racist message on it? After all, you're not racist yourself. It's just some silly icing and cake. Sure you don't agree with the message on the cake but why not be tolerant and make it for your customer?

Now, supposing you do have this conversation. Is this not just as intolerant and performative as if you were to just say "I can't in good conscience make a cake celebrating something I consider wrong."?

What do you think about the woman last year in Mississippi who refused to allow a mixed race couple to hold a wedding reception on her property based on her religious beliefs? That was in the news last year. Is that different or the same? She backpedaled after a tidal wave of bad publicity. Was she right and owed deference when she said on video that they don't do gay marriages or mixed race marriages due to their Christian faith. Was she right about one but not the other? How do we know which is a legitimate Christian belief and which is just racism?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-v ... d=65356377

I suspect this woman did hold a genuine belief that mixed race marriages were wrong. I also suspect that she had never given a lot of thought to why she believed them to be wrong. I would guess that she had been taught that, and never really questioned it. It would have been interesting to engage in conversation with her to find out what her belief was based on.
I don't know all of her reasons for changing her position on the matter, but I would hope it was based on more than just embarrassment and financial reasons. I think that in general it is harmful to society when people are forced to act in violation of their consciences, even when those consciences are misguided, although I would concede that there are some exceptions. I don't have a clear answer on how to decide what those exceptions should be.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. In general I support a much more expansive right to conscience or conscientious objection when doing so doesn't directly conflict with the rights of others. For example, conscientious objection to serving in the military doesn't directly violate anyone else's rights. I hold a much less expansive view when conscientious objection is used as an excuse or reason to discriminate against or violate the rights of others. And I think we are treading down a perilous path if we try to distinguish between what you might think are legitimate religious objections (anti-LGBT) and illegitimate religious objections (racism). And yes. Look up the dictionary definition of "bigotry." It does indeed apply here. The term is expansive and applies to all forms of intolerance, not just those that are based on race.

[ken_sylvania]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. In general I support a much more expansive right to conscience or conscientious objection when doing so doesn't directly conflict with the rights of others. For example, conscientious objection to serving in the military doesn't directly violate anyone else's rights. I hold a much less expansive view when conscientious objection is used as an excuse or reason to discriminate against or violate the rights of others. And I think we are treading down a perilous path if we try to distinguish between what you might think are legitimate religious objections (anti-LGBT) and illegitimate religious objections (racism).

It appears to me, though, that you are already treading that exact (perilous, if you will) path already. You are in fact distinguishing between what you think are legitimate objections and illegitimate objections when you decide that it is OK to discriminate against racists, murderers, and anti-government rebels.

And yes. Look up the dictionary definition of "bigotry." It does indeed apply here. The term is expansive and applies to all forms of intolerance, not just those that are based on race.

I am very well aware of the definition of "bigotry," thank you very much. I don't agree that the refusal to intentionally sell one's goods in support of the celebration of sin is bigotry.

Bigotry - obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group

In order for a particular form of intolerance to qualify as bigotry it has to be obstinate or unreasonable. I don't think that we have any evidence that obstinate or unreasonable accurately describe Jack Philips interaction with his would-be customers.