Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Sumerian

Bake the cake or get fined/sued?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, shadow_of_light said:

Do you mean that if i dont give them a cake, i will encourage their sin?

No, the opposite.  Like selling liquor, assisting in its manufacture or transportation.

So, if you sell the cake with the intention of facilitating their sin, you do wrong.

lf you sell them the cake because of some legal mandate, then you avoid gov't problems; plus they can also buy one somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a gay birthday cake? Is that also a problem? I think it's reasonable to assume they'd celebrate their birthday with their significant other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Klanky said:

They might try to normalize it by inviting unsuspecting people to eat FOOD in their gay "home"

Ohmygosh! What if gay people are actually working in restaurants, farms, and supermarkets? We could all be contaminated with gay food

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

When it comes to public institutions they have to serve everyone equally, but private businesses should have the right to deny or approve service to anyone for whatever reason. That's my opinion. 

The public institutions provide the basics, you're not going to die if a private business won't serve you a coke.

Finally, in this day and age, it would most likely self-regulate because people would boycott and expose racist businesses and they will be abandoned. But even if that doesn't happen, too bad.

I'm from liberal Sydney, Australia btw lol. 

Back in the 50s, 60s - there used to be signs in restaurants "No dogs No N#((!+ Allowed" .

Was that right or wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Should be legal imo its an expression of freedom in a secular society.

Part of being a shia is speaking haq and supporting haq. Consequently, part of being a shia is to call out wrong and injustice. 

You are saying that because it was a private business they have a right to reject service to someone based on prejudice and racism. Consequently you are supporting prejudice and racism. Conduct unbecoming a shia!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Part of being a shia is speaking haq and supporting haq. Consequently, part of being a shia is to call out wrong and injustice. 

You are saying that because it was a private business they have a right to reject service to someone based on prejudice and racism. Consequently you are supporting prejudice and racism. Conduct unbecoming a shia!!!

In transaction Fiqh, there is no proof one is obligated to serve everyone equally by way of race anyway. It's not ethical nor is is the way of a Shi'i mu'min but it's not wajib. 

I don't support government involvement in matters like this. 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

I personally don't want to get into the science issue today because:

1. It's still inconclusive what causes sexual orientation ...if you are positing it has anything to do with fetal development,then that is not the fault of the individual any more than ethnicity. Sure, straight or gay, we can and should control our behavior. This society has decided to no longer favor only heterosexual marriage commitments. Marriage ,at least theoretically, controls behavior and encourages stability.

2. Most twin studies seem to be done on males....female homosexuality is even harder to study scientifically 

Found this in my notes. Take on twin studies. Seems genes are in there somewhere.

From Melissa Healy LA Times, Oct. 8, 2015

 

"Our best guess is that there are genes" that affect a man's sexual orientation "because that's what twin studies suggest," said Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey, who  has explored a range of physiological markers that point to homosexuality's origins in the womb. But the existence of identical twin pairs in which only one is homosexual "conclusively suggest that genes don't explain everything," Bailey added.

 

 

Exactly what I said. There may be genetic factors, but this does not mean that it is 'determined' by genes. When we say someone is 'born that way', that means (to me at least) that from the moment they are born, they are 'x' and that is never going to change no matter what. If that is the case, that would mean that it is genetically determined, because at birth none of the other factors (environment, upbringing, social norms, life experiences) are relevant. 

My position, that homosexuality is a behavior that is chosen, is not based on science(as we currently understand it). A deductive / scientific argument cannot prove or disprove this. It is a logical argument based on the premise, in Islam and other religions, that God is just and does not do injustice to anyone. In Islam, we are taught that someone who has a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex(man with man, women with women) and continues to do this and does not repent and attempt to change this behavior during their life will be punished severely after they die. If they cannot avoid doing this, and are 'born this way', then punishing them for it would not be just or fair because God, thru their genetics, programmed them to do this. Therefore, God is unjust to these people. 

I do not believe God is unjust, therefore I cannot accept that premise, that people are 'born that way'. 

There is other evidence that this is not the case (as has been already cited in this thread), but that is not the basis for my point. The above is. 

At the same time, whether someone is born with darker skin or lighter skin, curly or strait hair, wide nose or thin nose, descended from  Ogalala Sioux or Irish fishermen has nothing to do with how good of a person they are or whether they will be rewarded or punished after they die. This is determined not by genetics, but by behavior, whether this person's behavior helps themselves and society or helps to destroy themselves and society. This has been a teaching of Islam long before the civil rights movement. So you could say Islam was the original civil rights movement. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Exactly what I said. There may be genetic factors, but this does not mean that it is 'determined' by genes. When we say someone is 'born that way', that means (to me at least) that from the moment they are born, they are 'x' and that is never going to change no matter what. If that is the case, that would mean that it is genetically determined, because at birth none of the other factors (environment, upbringing, social norms, life experiences) are relevant. 

My position, that homosexuality is a behavior that is chosen, is not based on science(as we currently understand it). A deductive / scientific argument cannot prove or disprove this. It is a logical argument based on the premise, in Islam and other religions, that God is just and does not do injustice to anyone. In Islam, we are taught that someone who has a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex(man with man, women with women) and continues to do this and does not repent and attempt to change this behavior during their life will be punished severely after they die. If they cannot avoid doing this, and are 'born this way', then punishing them for it would not be just or fair because God, thru their genetics, programmed them to do this. Therefore, God is unjust to these people. 

I do not believe God is unjust, therefore I cannot accept that premise, that people are 'born that way'. 

There is other evidence that this is not the case (as has been already cited in this thread), but that is not the basis for my point. The above is. 

At the same time, whether someone is born with darker skin or lighter skin, curly or strait hair, wide nose or thin nose, descended from  Ogalala Sioux or Irish fishermen has nothing to do with how good of a person they are or whether they will be rewarded or punished after they die. This is determined not by genetics, but by behavior, whether this person's behavior helps themselves and society or helps to destroy themselves and society. This has been a teaching of Islam long before the civil rights movement. So you could say Islam was the original civil rights movement. 

In a world of war, murder, theft, corruption, rape, child abuse, wife beaters, baby abusers, name callers, stone throwers, mean insulting people etc what is "just" about punishing severely two people of the same gender who, in the midst of all this, find love, companionship and pleasure in each other? Is it really self-evidently logical to you that this is just or do you only accept it as logically just because your religion says it is so? Lets leave aside the public aspect and talk about it in isolation because it goes more directly to the point. I've read on this site that if they do it in private it is between them and god and that they will be punished for it. Is there really valid logic to this "justice"?  

Edited by Klanky
changed a "this" to "there"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Klanky said:

In a world of war, murder, theft, corruption, rape, child abuse, wife beaters, baby abusers, name callers, stone throwers, mean insulting people etc what is "just" about punishing severely two people of the same gender who, in the midst of all this, find love, companionship and pleasure in each other? Is it really self-evidently logical to you that this is just or do you only accept it as logically just because your religion says it is so? Lets leave aside the public aspect and talk about it in isolation because it goes more directly to the point. I've read on this site that if they do it in private it is between them and god and that they will be punished for it. Is there really valid logic to this "justice"?  

It is just because there are a few concepts in Islam (and these exist in most other religions also) that must be understood. 

According to Islam, society is based on a 'web of trust'. The 'web of trust' means that God created mankind and also created human society and the rules and regulations that govern it. He(s.w.a) made human society governed by rules and regulations. Some of these rules and regulations we are aware of, some of them we are not and they operate in what is known as the 'alim al Ghiab', or the hidden world (it exists, we are just not aware of it in our present condition). Because God knows that human beings are limited in their capacity to understand all these rules and regulations and how they interact with each other, He(s.w.a) made us aware of the ones that are the most destructive and most productive to this 'web of trust' (the interactions and regulations that govern society in both the apparent(dhahir) and hidden(ghaib) realms. He(s.w.a) did this thru the Holy Quran and hadith(sayings) of our Prophets and Imams(peace be upon all of them). The most destructive, He(s.w.a) made haram(forbidden) and the most productive he made wajib(required) or mustahab(recommended). 

Because I believe that the Holy Quran is from God and the Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) is the Messenger of God and the Imam of Ahl Al Bayt(a.s) are the leaders appointed by God as the sucessors of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h), I accept that there is this 'web of trust' and there are these regulations and some of them I am aware of and understand and some of them I am not aware of and I don't understand but because I accept the former, I am required to accept the latter. This is strait logic. At the same time, I am a person who is educated in the Western sciences, and I don't see anything in those that contradict or disprove what I have said above so I don't see that there is a logical conflict between my faith and Western science with regards to this subject. 

I don't doubt that two men can love each other and be attached to each other. I have brothers (biological brothers) whom I love, I have a father, and friends who are men whom I love a great deal. There are even members on this site who are men whom I have never met, but I would love to meet and probably would love them too. Also, two men (or two women) who are in a sexual relationship with each other(I have no experience with this but I am assuming) could experience this love also. I don't doubt that. The love is not what is destructive to society, and not what is forbidden. It is the sexual relationship that is forbidden and destructive and makes them subject to punishment in the next life(or sometimes this life also). Do I understand why, completely, no. But, like I said above, I accept that it is destructive based on my faith and there is nothing in Western Science that contradicts this, i.e. that proves deductively that it is not destructive to the fabric of society. I hope this answered your question. 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

If they cannot avoid doing this, and are 'born this way', then punishing them for it would not be just or fair because God, thru their genetics, programmed them to do this. Therefore, God is unjust to these people. 

Self control, as always, is possible. Slips and failures, as always, are very common. And orientation, afaik, is not a choice. Shall we gay muslims think God is unjust? Because what is a wrong assumption for you, is a clear fact for us.

Also, from a secular sociological perspective, marrying a black girl one thousand years ago in Europe would be "destructive" to the fabric of society as well. This stance makes sense only when faith justifies it, not sociology nor any other scientific field.

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda, thanks. I think it boils down to "it is bad and punishment is logically just because my religion says so". I can accept this as someone's point of view even if I feel it amounts to dressing up the lack of logic in the emperor's new clothes i.e. It must be just even though I don't know why. Also the bit about science not contradicting your belief - neither does it confirm it. But at least I get where these views are coming from a bit more.

(This was in reply to Abu Hadi)

Edited by Klanky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Klanky there is still an unnecessary fear based on how society changed its views on homosexuality so fast. Any debate, question or opinion that could be linked to a "gay agenda" to brainwash islamic society's values is quickly censored and not taken into consideration.

This is, nonetheless, one of the important social topics demanding changes in muslim communities and governments, along with women's rights. We really don't need poor logic and fear for such topics (Not talking specifically about Abu Hadi, of course, but about the general tone that one can read in such topics)

Edited by Bakir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bakir said:

Also, from a secular sociological perspective, marrying a black girl one thousand years ago in Europe would be "destructive" to the fabric of society as well. This stance makes sense only when faith justifies it, not sociology nor any other scientific field.

Or only fifty years ago in the United States.  It was a crime in some states as late as 1967, and still not fully socially acceptable in some areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sumerian said:

In transaction Fiqh, there is no proof one is obligated to serve everyone equally by way of race anyway. It's not ethical nor is is the way of a Shi'i mu'min but it's not wajib. 

I don't support government involvement in matters like this. 

On the contrary, you can't be unjust to people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How other people act isn't how you are judged.  You are judged on only your own actions.  

How did The Prophet (as) treat unbelievers, even ones who were hostile toward him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, notme said:

How did The Prophet (as) treat unbelievers, even ones who were hostile toward him? 

The prophet & Ahlulbayt (as) agenda toward these people was to be hostile toward them until they didn’t harm community in many occasions they act toward them with kindness that caused absorbing them to way of Ahlulbayt (as) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

The prophet & Ahlulbayt (as) agenda toward these people was to be hostile toward them until they didn’t harm community in many occasions they act toward them with kindness that caused absorbing them to way of Ahlulbayt (as) 

Maybe you and I have read different things, but what I've read, they treated them with respect and dignity, just like any other human being, except if they were directly attacked first, then they fought only as much as needed to avert harm to the Muslim community. It isn't condoning sin to be kind to sinners. It is dawah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismehe Ta3ala,

Assalam Alikum

Where societies, laws, and morality changed from time to time, Islam's position on homosexuality has not.  It will stay this way until Day of Judgement.  No matter how hard you try to convince, persuade, or do your utmost to change our "hearts and minds"  on this filthy sin, you can not.  You can't shake our beliefs, whether it is to bake a cake, rent a hotel room, rent a car for a same sex occasion your haram money is not welcomed nor wanted. Capisce? 

 حلال محمد حلال إلى يوم القيامة وحرام محمد حرام إلى يوم القيامة 

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

@notme strange that some of you people claim you are against authoritarianism but want the state involved here.

Government is a necessary evil. It exists ensure that everyone is treated fairly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Laayla said:

Bismehe Ta3ala,

Assalam Alikum

Where societies, laws, and morality changed from time to time, Islam's position on homosexuality has not.  It will stay this way until Day of Judgement.  No matter how hard you try to convince, persuade, or do your utmost to change our "hearts and minds"  on this filthy sin, you can not.  You can't shake our beliefs, whether it is to bake a cake, rent a hotel room, rent a car for a same sex occasion your haram money is not welcomed nor wanted. Capisce? 

 حلال محمد حلال إلى يوم القيامة وحرام محمد حرام إلى يوم القيامة 

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

AM

Listen, I'm going nowhere til I get the cake and I don't care if I have to wait until judgement day. Caprice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Klanky said:

Listen, I'm going nowhere til I get the cake and I don't care if I have to wait until judgement day. Caprice?

Hey, take it easy. If you end up going to the wrong bakery that really really hates gays and are not afraid of God and you keep annoying them they might put arsenic in your cake. Be wise. Don't challenge destiny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

So you're not really libertarian then..

I never claimed be. :)

My politics are all over the place. No party suits me, but these days I'm about as far from Libertarianism as a person can get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, notme said:

I never claimed be. :)

My politics are all over the place. No party suits me, but these days I'm about as far from Libertarianism as a person can get. 

Well I'm very suspicious of state authority. I don't want the government looking over a little transaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, notme said:

My politics are all over the place. No party suits me, but

but that does not surprise me.

On E.Mush:  get back to idealism.   Vs.   Gov't is a necessary evil. (Which is also an unexplained supposition.)

Chilli:  Torntilla chips although corn bread.  Vs.   "We didn't eat left overs, as mentioned above."

Gay Cakes:  "You are judged on only your own actions"  Vs. "We could all be contaminated with gay food!"

Just in this past week.

PLEASE NOTE: l am in the mood to pick on someone, so You Are lt.  :grin:

:D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Gay Cakes:  "You are judged on only your own actions"  Vs. "We could all be contaminated with gay food!"

I don't deny the rest. However, on this one I forgot to use the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags. 

 

30 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Gov't is a necessary evil. 

Thomas Paine influenced. 

https://books.google.com/books/about/Common_Sense.html?id=haE-XRpRzPEC

Besides thinking of government as a necessary evil, I share little if anything in common with modern American Libertarians. In fact, I think their ideology is evil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Well I'm very suspicious of state authority. I don't want the government looking over a little transaction.

Why be suspicious of one kind of authority? Private authority in the Western world causes far more damage and they are far less accountable than governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...