# Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times

A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.



> Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couples children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.
> 
> And yet another wrote: Heres hoping you go out of business, you bigot.
> The couple said on top of that, their vendors were badgered and harassed into stopping all associations with the bakery.
> ...



Looks like they need a Chik-Fil-A-type support system.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Sep 3, 2013)

You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.  I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc.  But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.

Just STFU gay people.  I don't care about your aberration.

P.S.  To whom it may concern:  Look up the word "aberration" before getting on my case.  Because if you don't think two men wanting to fondle each other isn't a departure from what is normal or typical, well I don't know what is.  Doesn't make it wrong (I have to say that).  Just makes it a departure from the norm.  As in "abnormal."

Oh, and for those of you who have been trying to peg me as a "liberal" lately...how liberal was this comment?


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Okay, well; now that you're done making it all about you, care to discuss the subject of the OP?


----------



## Individual (Sep 3, 2013)

Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
Essentially the government is allowing persons who have different, and perhaps higher moral standards, to be discriminated against and even threatened physically.
The practical solution to the disagreement should have been for the couple to seek the services desired from another bakery in the competitive marketplace.
The Kleins, in my opinion, have legal grounds to seek and receive damages as a result of the actions taken against them in exercising their 1st Amendment right.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 3, 2013)

People have the right to refuse to buy from a place.

and that's fine

the fact liberals went national with this is the real evil and tyranny.  You got what you wanted, every little business now knows they must submit to any leftist ideal or else.

grats, you got what you wanted and now you don't like it.  Tough, this is who you are and what team you support is.


----------



## koshergrl (Sep 3, 2013)

Yes, a year ago you were pro-fascism, now you see it actually in place, it's a little uncomfortable.

Tough shit. Welcome to the new world you created. Isn't it lovely.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Individual said:


> Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> Essentially the government is allowing persons who have different, and perhaps higher moral standards, to be discriminated against and even threatened physically.
> The practical solution to the disagreement should have been for the couple to seek the services desired from another bakery in the competitive marketplace.
> The Kleins, in my opinion, have legal grounds to seek and receive damages as a result of the actions taken against them in exercising their 1st Amendment right.



Thank you for your considerate and well thought-out response.

I wonder what kind of pressure the vendors were under that they chose to act against this couple.


----------



## paperview (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:
			
		

> ...
> I wonder what kind of pressure the vendors were under that they chose to act against this couple.


Maybe they saw what is purported to be a facebook rant by the couple (and deleted not long after)

Screenshot


----------



## paperview (Sep 3, 2013)

Any threats by people against the baking couple are wrong and need to be investigated.

Any boycotts and people using their free speech to castigate them for their bigotry and violating the law is fair game.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Wow.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

I'm kind of stunned. Floored, rather. 

When I posted earlier, I was thinking "I have friends and family who are Christian. Would I want their business to go south because they stood by their beliefs?"

But if that's really from her page, then this would be karma. You can't put that level of hate and ugly out into the universe and not get back more of the same.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 3, 2013)

Faggots and their rabid supporters have become today's brown shirt Nazis.  ..


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Heh. They got punked.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter



> "I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought Id get her two identical cakesbasically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.
> 
> Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? Itll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.
> 
> In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.



So anything goes! 

Just not teh gheys.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2013)

It's their own fault. People have the right to refuse to buy from them, which they did, and they are complaining about it?
Get over it. Your business closed its doors because of your backward opinions, and that vile Facebook post didn't help matters.


----------



## novasteve (Sep 3, 2013)

You have to like us or else
/


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Nope. Don't have to like, just have to abide by the law.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Nope. Don't have to like, just have to abide by the law.



Which they didn't, and they blame everyone else but themselves. Hypocrites.


----------



## novasteve (Sep 3, 2013)

Do fags have to abide by the law?


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2013)

novasteve said:


> Do fags have to abide by the law?



The homosexual couple were not in the wrong here. The bakers were.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 3, 2013)

The bakery should have compromised and offered to make and sell 'Fruitcakes' for their gay wedding customers.  ..


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2013)

They make cakes for people who have had kids out of wedlock. So much for being Christians, huh?


----------



## novasteve (Sep 3, 2013)

When fags have sex in public places do they comply with the law?


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2013)

novasteve said:


> When fags have sex in public places do they comply with the law?



Oh fuck off. Stop saying stupid shit.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 3, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Faggots and their rabid supporters have become today's brown shirt Nazis.  ..



spoken like a true bigot...remind me again..when were brown shirts murdered for their beliefs and exiled...go on sunni....tell me that story

you have the right to refuse service to anyone but you must deal with the consequences of your actions ..... hate never brings on good


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 3, 2013)

novasteve said:


> When fags have sex in public places do they comply with the law?




i thought sex in public was against the law no matter who is doing it...did that change?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 3, 2013)

The only thing I see here is that the lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state. Who is not taking the threats against them seriously or investigating them apparently.

They weren't forced to close. They were pursuaded to do sop. The threats against them is another matter entirely, including harrassment. The couple that was declined their cake should obviously, go eat cake. It's not anyones responsiblility to make them a cake. For whatever reason that business chooses. Ethically, morally or lawfully.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 3, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Faggots and their rabid supporters have become today's brown shirt Nazis.  ..
> ...


Not wanting to bake cakes for gays doesn't equal hate.......just personal conviction.

And like I said before.

The bakery should have compromised and offered 'Fruitcakes' for their gay customers.  ..


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 3, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Faggots and their rabid supporters have become today's brown shirt Nazis.  ..
> ...



this is when the brown shirts were murdered for their beliefs

Night of the Long Knives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## martybegan (Sep 3, 2013)

paperview said:


> Any threats by people against the baking couple are wrong and need to be investigated.
> 
> Any boycotts and people using their free speech to castigate them for their bigotry and violating the law is fair game.



Nothing wrong with boycotts, but when you use the government to force people to go against thier religous beliefs, then there is a problem.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 3, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> When gay bars, clubs, coffee shops and restaurants refuse entry to women( pun not intended) should women boycott those venues?
> Is there a law preventing such elitist segregation?
> Reports of increasing assaults in PTown MA against the local fishing community.
> The breeders are being forced out.



i have never been ask to leave a gay bar....you do realize that a gay bar allows male and female gays...

the only time anything has been closed off to me...i was in a gay book store for men....i was ask to stay in the front of the bookstore and not to enter the back areas which were reading rooms for the men only.....i thought the term 'reading rooms' was polite and quaint lol


----------



## editec (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



WIMPS!

They got some emails and phone calls?

Pussies..they're OOB because their business failed, so now they're hoping that by pretending to be SCARED they're hoping RW dupes will save their bidness.

If they were threatened, they can go top the cops.

Did they?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Sep 3, 2013)

This year I swear has been gay this, gay that, fucking sick of hearing about this shit.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2013)

Individual said:


> Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> Essentially the government is allowing persons who have different, and perhaps higher moral standards, to be discriminated against and even threatened physically.
> The practical solution to the disagreement should have been for the couple to seek the services desired from another bakery in the competitive marketplace.
> The Kleins, in my opinion, have legal grounds to seek and receive damages as a result of the actions taken against them in exercising their 1st Amendment right.



Separation of church and state does not come into this because the state didnt do a damn thing.  Read the article, the state did not do the forcing.  Boycotts and activists made the business unprofitable and it failed.  What happened was EXACTLY what should have happened barring the threats.

The threats were wrong and should be looked into but the actual outcome was from people properly taking this into their own hands and decrying a business that was acting like bigots.


martybegan said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Any threats by people against the baking couple are wrong and need to be investigated.
> ...


Very true.  This case has nothing to do with the government though.  The government is NOT what forced this couple to close shop so the point is rather irrelevant to this particular case.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2013)

paperview said:


> Any threats by people against the baking couple are wrong and need to be investigated.
> 
> Any boycotts and people using their free speech to castigate them for their bigotry and violating the law is fair game.



^ THIS, exactly.


----------



## Anitabeme (Sep 3, 2013)

paperview said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is this for real?? If these people want to stay in business, they are NOT going to post shit like this on their FB page. I'm thinking they were hacked...


----------



## martybegan (Sep 3, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Individual said:
> 
> 
> > Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> ...



From the article:



> The Kleins cited their Christian beliefs of traditional marriage when they turned down that business gig, The Blaze reported. But the lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state, accusing the shop owners of discrimination.
> 
> Read more: Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 3, 2013)

martybegan said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Individual said:
> ...



And the result of that complaint?  Nothing in there says that anything came from the complaint.  

They said they closed shop because the business was driven away.


> A husband-and-wife bakery shop team in Oregon were forced to close their shop doors and move to cheaper digs  their home  after gay-rights activists hounded them and drove away contract business because they refused for Christian reasons to bake for a same-sex wedding.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The Kleins say theyre now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash.



So, yes, I agree that the using the state to force people to capitulate against their beliefs is wrong and that the complaint is also wrong but it did not amount to anything that I can identify in the article or otherwise.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> I'm kind of stunned. Floored, rather.
> 
> When I posted earlier, I was thinking "I have friends and family who are Christian. Would I want their business to go south because they stood by their beliefs?"
> 
> But if that's really from her page, then this would be karma. You can't put that level of hate and ugly out into the universe and not get back more of the same.



Yes, if that is really her page. It was so harsh that I have my reservations.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 3, 2013)

funny that....i have never been ask my sexual orientation at any bar...gay or straight....

we call catholics breeders


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 3, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > When fags have sex in public places do they comply with the law?
> ...



Is sex in public against the law?  No wonder I get so many dirty looks.


----------



## paperview (Sep 3, 2013)




----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

They are closing the retail outlet, not going out of business.   What this baker is doing is exactly what she should be doing, selling her goods privately.   She won't lose any customers, they will still buy from her with direct sales.  She will find stores and other outlets for sales.  Meanwhile, she will have no overhead.    The gay couple STILL could not force her to bake their cake and now the baker won't have the question come up anymore.  She kept her business and her freedom of religion.  It turned out exactly the way it should.


----------



## longknife (Sep 3, 2013)

Another example of the utterly ignorant and hateful activities of the massive MINORITY of the GTBL[?] sumbags!

The only nation in this world that seems to understand just how miserable this group is is Russia.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2013)

A business should cater to those with money in their pockets and keep their  religion checked at the church door.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> They are closing the retail outlet, not going out of business.   What this baker is doing is exactly what she should be doing, selling her goods privately.   She won't lose any customers, they will still buy from her with direct sales.  She will find stores and other outlets for sales.  Meanwhile, she will have no overhead.    The gay couple STILL could not force her to bake their cake and now the baker won't have the question come up anymore.  She kept her business and her freedom of religion.  It turned out exactly the way it should.



Really? With what vendors? Nice spin, but they didn't head home because it's their soft place to fall.  They couldn't afford to stay where they were.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Your record is stuck.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > funny that....i have never been ask my sexual orientation at any bar...gay or straight....
> ...



Oh FFS Pauli. "Violently assaulting?" With pixels?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> A business should cater to those with money in their pockets and keep their  religion checked at the church door.



That's a business decision.   They can now make any kind of business decision they want.  Now they don't have to sell cookies to gays.  Not a cupcake!  They now have total freedom to pick and choose who their customers are.    

This bakery was no doubt intimidated into an alternative business model  by the investigations the state launched against them.  They might have handled it better and simply not made any more wedding cakes, except for "friends".   They chose to go fully private.    

This is the beginnings of a completely Christian economy!   One that is available only by who you know.  If you want one of those lemon bars, you better know someone who can recommend you.

This is as it should be.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > They are closing the retail outlet, not going out of business.   What this baker is doing is exactly what she should be doing, selling her goods privately.   She won't lose any customers, they will still buy from her with direct sales.  She will find stores and other outlets for sales.  Meanwhile, she will have no overhead.    The gay couple STILL could not force her to bake their cake and now the baker won't have the question come up anymore.  She kept her business and her freedom of religion.  It turned out exactly the way it should.
> ...



According to the article, it was a campaign of harassment and intimidation that forced them to close.   If only normals would do the same thing to a gay business.   Then we'd have something to discuss.  A small group of militants were able to impose their will on law abiding people who were doing nothing to them.

They can keep their vendors, just change the name, or sell  to stores who use their own label.    They just won't have to support the landlord.    Christians are always better off when they don't have to balance their beliefs against what gays want.    Gays will end up only picking and choosing from among those willing to do business with them.  It is just the way it should be.  There is nothing they can do now to this baker except moan about how they can't buy so much as a crumb cake from them.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 3, 2013)

This is just like limbaugh/beck losing listeners and just like the increase of business to Chick filet. 

Don't blame gays for this. People can choose where to spend their money.

Also note that this is not gays boycotting. There aren't enough gays in the entire country to make up for straights who simply stopped shopping there.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.  I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc.  But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.
> 
> Just STFU gay people.  I don't care about your aberration.
> 
> ...




i agree...i am getting sick of the forced agenda ....onto others. The ONLY reason they wanted this baker to make their cake was for the publicity. 


i am totally against not being able to tell anyone for any reason..... you will not service them.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Okay, well; now that you're done making it all about you, care to discuss the subject of the OP?




the idea was to force them out of business....or kowtow to their gay agenda.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2013)

If you want a business that caters to only certain people then don't open your doors to the public, there are discrimination laws.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I'm kind of stunned. Floored, rather.
> ...



Same. Too much trying. Either hacked, or shopped.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 3, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> If you want a business that caters to only certain people then don't open your doors to the public, there are discrimination laws.



For private enterprises there shouldnt be anti-discrimination laws. 

The government is another matter.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> This is just like limbaugh/beck losing listeners and just like the increase of business to Chick filet.
> 
> Don't blame gays for this. People can choose where to spend their money.
> 
> Also note that this is not gays boycotting. There aren't enough gays in the entire country to make up for straights who simply stopped shopping there.



The article says it was a hate campaign.  Is the article untrue?

The bakery will do just fine, better than ever, and not have to compromise.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Do fags have to abide by the law?
> ...




agreed.... the bakers should have said they were booked up and could not take any more orders.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

syrenn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, well; now that you're done making it all about you, care to discuss the subject of the OP?
> ...



That's what I told somebody by PM. Fine, you want to 'teach them a lesson' or whatever, spread the word, take your money and walk, etc. But going after their vendors (in my estimation) - they went too far. That meant they couldn't honor the jobs they _did_ have.


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> The bakery should have compromised and offered to make and sell 'Fruitcakes' for their gay wedding customers.  ..




you do know that fruitcakes are traditional wedding cakes don't you?  Now they are used more for "grooms" cakes.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2013)

sure and why don't we go back to refusing black people a ride on the front of the bus while we are at it.


----------



## editec (Sep 3, 2013)

Nobody FORCED them out of business.

What a load of whining nonsense.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



Hey they chose to ignore the market and lost the good will of the community.

it was stupid of them to risk their livelihood over this issue.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > novasteve said:
> ...



Exactly!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > This is just like limbaugh/beck losing listeners and just like the increase of business to Chick filet.
> ...



Of course the bakery is waging a "hate campaign". And, so are those who disagree with them.

So? I hate that these people have chosen to use god as an excuse to spread hate but that's their choice and I support their right to be stupid and backward. 

I also support the right of those who choose not to shop there. 

However, I disagree with those who have called the bakery. 

If the non-christian bakery is doing so well, why have they had to give up their storefront?

Question - why don't haters like you support those who choose not to shop there?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > novasteve said:
> ...



Maybe lying is against their religion.

What they should have done was just not offer wedding cakes at all.  They make wedding cakes only as arranged privately.    The judge in the photographer case put the rules down very clearly.  If you offer the service to the public, you are bound by public accommodation laws.   Don't offer the service to the public.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Except then they should also have denied service to all the people in the 'punked' article I linked.

Right?

Right.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 3, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> sure and why don't we go back to refusing black people a ride on the front of the bus while we are at it.



buses are usually a government funded service, and thus are required to provide equal services for equal cost. 

Bakers are usually not government funded, nor do they have an irreplaceable role in interstate or even intrastate commerce.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I choose the right of the bakers to not offer their goods to the public at large and limit their clientele to Christians only if they wish.  They were pushed into doing what they should have done from the very beginning.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > sure and why don't we go back to refusing black people a ride on the front of the bus while we are at it.
> ...



I believe they had the right to refuse service but now they have to pay the price of the loss of good will.

It was their choice it is now their consequence.

All good.

In this day and age I do not know why any business owner would risk offending the people in the market he serves.

It's just plain old stupid.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> They are closing the retail outlet, not going out of business.   What this baker is doing is exactly what she should be doing, selling her goods privately.   She won't lose any customers, they will still buy from her with direct sales.  She will find stores and other outlets for sales.  Meanwhile, she will have no overhead.    The gay couple STILL could not force her to bake their cake and now the baker won't have the question come up anymore.  She kept her business and her freedom of religion.  It turned out exactly the way it should.




I think you seem to misunderstand.  "Sweet Cakes by Melisa" is not going out of business, they will still be operating under an Oregon Business License and (from the articles I've read) they will still be functioning as a Public Accommodation business because they will continue to advertise to the public.  There website is still up and listing the services they offer to the public (Home - Sweet Cakes).

Just because the will be operating out of their home does not change the nature of their business.


I'm sure you remember the NM Photographer case?  Elaine's Photopgraphy was operated out of their home, they did not have a studio.



>>>>


----------



## syrenn (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




the refused in the wrong way......

personally i would NOT want someone who did not want to service me....making my cake.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > They are closing the retail outlet, not going out of business.   What this baker is doing is exactly what she should be doing, selling her goods privately.   She won't lose any customers, they will still buy from her with direct sales.  She will find stores and other outlets for sales.  Meanwhile, she will have no overhead.    The gay couple STILL could not force her to bake their cake and now the baker won't have the question come up anymore.  She kept her business and her freedom of religion.  It turned out exactly the way it should.
> ...



Moving from an established retail location to the basement of your home is the death knell of your business.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



They should have denied making wedding cakes period, then chosen who to bake them for privately.  The rules were very clear in the photographer case.  They were sensible.  They satisfied everyone except those who want to force others to do something they don't want to do.

If a bakery does not advertise wedding cakes and puts up a sign saying they don't bake wedding cakes, then bakes a wedding cake as a special request, they don't have to bake cakes for same sex wedding cakes because that is not a service available to the public.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> They can keep their vendors, just change the name, or sell  to stores who use their own label.




That would be a change to their business model, up until this point there have been no "venders"  the bakers sell directly to the public.

They of course are free to change their business model to one where they sell cakes to another bakery and/or store and then the other business does sales.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

martybegan said:


> For private enterprises there shouldnt be anti-discrimination laws.
> 
> The government is another matter.




I agree, private business should be able to discriminate based on any criteria they determine fits their business model including race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion.  (And yes I'm serious.)

Public Accommodation laws should apply to government entities and of course bar them from doing business with discriminatory businesses, but private businesses should not be limited.


>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > For private enterprises there shouldnt be anti-discrimination laws.
> ...



And those businesses can pay the price if their discrimination offends those in the market they serve.

That's free enterprise the way it's supposed to be.  the market decides which business lives or dies


----------



## Luissa (Sep 3, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



No they don't, liar.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Of course not.   Plenty of businesses are home based and never get beyond that.   I know several myself.   Some grow into off site locations and still don't open to the public.   This could easily grow into an entire Christian network of businesses that aren't open to the public.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I hope you warmed up first. It'd be a shame to see you sprain something, stretching that hard.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > They can keep their vendors, just change the name, or sell  to stores who use their own label.
> ...



According to the article, they had vendors who has also been the victims of gay hate.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Yep.

Liberty and Freedom can be messy at times, but it's the prince to be paid.


>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Sorry but if i packed up my business and moved it into my front room I'd be out of business.

They obviously had enough business to need a retail shop for years and years now they can't afford the rent and upkeep.  They are moving backwards and can't be compared to a business that never grew enough to move out of the spare room and they have no one to blame but themselves



These guys are as good as out of business.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

I don't see this as a bad thing, but a good thing.  It just needs some creative thinking.   Gays will simply have to get used to doing business only with those willing to do business with them.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> I don't see this as a bad thing, but a good thing.  It just needs some creative thinking.   Gays will simply have to get used to doing business only with those willing to do business with them.



No, businesses will have to learn to serve the market or pay the price.

That's they way it's always been.

The market and social attitudes are changing if businesses can't change to suit the market because of the owners bigotry then believe me they won't be around much longer.

Some of our best clients are gays or lesbians and I am happy to take their money.  But then again I'm not a bigot.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




I was referencing the portion of your post where you said *"or sell  to stores who use their own label."* which is a change in their business model from selling to the pubic in general either through retail baking and display or through custom services offered to the public.  They could operate under a different business model where they don't take contracts or offer services to the pubic - they could contract with other stores to provide baked goods and not do special orders directly.  Basically they could be a vendor to other businesses.

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> I don't see this as a bad thing, but a good thing.  It just needs some creative thinking.   Gays will simply have to get used to doing business only with those willing to do business with them.




I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  If they are operating a business (even if it is out of their home), have a business license, and advertise for public sale of goods or services - they still fall under public accommodation laws.



>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



My mechanic decided a few years ago that he was never again going to have a black customer.   He just had too much trouble from them.  He closed up his mechanic shop and went private.  He's done better than ever.  Relieved of monthly overhead, he was able to drop his prices.  He doesn't have to pay for advertising either.

Times are changing.   What used to be a detriment is going to end up being a plus.   As icing on this particular cake, they won't have employees either.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Then they'll have to settle for making a lot less money.

Sorry but two people working out of a home without commercial equipment won't be able to produce much.

Just like your shade tree mechanic bigot will make a lot less than he would if he employed a dozen mechanics in a well run business.

And I'm sure he doesn't pay taxes on what he earns now and that's nothing to be praising.

J Paul Getty once said; ""I'd rather have 1% of the effort of 100 men than 100% of my own effort."

That is the essence of owning a business.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see this as a bad thing, but a good thing.  It just needs some creative thinking.   Gays will simply have to get used to doing business only with those willing to do business with them.
> ...



You are relying too heavily on the web site.  It has not been changed, yet.  Did you notice that it still has a shot of the store.   They will have to make some changes in their advertising.  They will probably move out of their home quite quickly and into space where they do the baking but that doesn't mean they have to open their doors to the public.  

If it were me, I just would stop baking wedding cakes except by private arrangement.  I'd put up a sign that says "State and federal law prohibit the advertisement of wedding cakes".


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



They don't have to stay in their home.  They can move to a place where they do the baking and still don't have to open to the public.   There are many things they can do to avoid this imposition.  All of them ending up making more money than they did with a single retail outlet.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



#1  The already made cakes by "private arrangement", people came in, they ordered a cake, they discussed the design with the owner, the owner sold the cake.  I'm not sure why, while operating legally under an Oregon Business license as a public business you think "private arrangments" weren't already made.  They would need to close shop, relinquish their license, and re-incorporate under a private club concept - then they could restrict sales to bonefide members.

#2  Why would a Christian couple lie about advertising?  No State of Federal law prohibits them from advertising about wedding cakes.



>>>>


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



It's the only way they can discriminate.


----------



## eagle7_31 (Sep 3, 2013)

TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News

threats are something else.


----------



## Redfish (Sep 3, 2013)

eagle7_31 said:


> TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News
> 
> threats are something else.



This is what we have become.   Political correctness is more important than freedom.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Maybe but that's not the gist I got from the link.  They took a huge financial hit so they had to close down the shop. There was no mention of any other plan so I doubt they have one.

But it was their own fault so I don't have much sympathy for them


----------



## bendog (Sep 3, 2013)

Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant?  Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.

I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are.  And,

Former Southern Baptist Leader Calls for Boycott of Pat Robertson on EthicsDaily.com

So, I'm left wondering why anyone criticizes GLBT organizations from boycotting the bakery, and getting a list of the bakery's customers who cater and telling them to either quit doing biz with the bakery or face similar boycot.   People have a right to free speech and to urge others to take some action.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 3, 2013)

bendog said:


> Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant?  Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.
> 
> I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are.  And,
> 
> ...



Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?


----------



## bendog (Sep 3, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant?  Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.
> ...



According to the Supreme Court, it is unlimited.  I would say that the amount of money that can be expended in an election can be limited on per capita, or company or union basis.  But the SC has held otherwise ... for now.

And my personal view is Lester Maddux should have able to deny service, as should the christian bakers.  But apparantly, courts disagree.  But, all have a right to boycott.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2013)

No, free speech is not unlimited, but extends a long, long way.

Counter boycotts are fine.  Nacogdoches witnessed that against Stripling's Drug Store back in the 1970s.

Threats of violence or personal retaliation are something else.


----------



## shintao (Sep 3, 2013)

eagle7_31 said:


> TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News
> 
> threats are something else.



Oh my!! Christians are so, so passively sensitive to those that would use the 1st Amendment. lol!! What threat?


----------



## bendog (Sep 3, 2013)

Oh, well, supposedly free speech does not extend to inciting violence, and there are limits on libel and slander.  But, I meant political speech.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 3, 2013)

bendog said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Given that I live in the state where he was Governor, I know for a fact he did not have the right to deny service to blacks. Given that he filed a lawsuit to continue his racist policies. The restaurant was known as "Pickrick" and went into business in 1944. This was a case of him not wanting to conform to the times. Given that the SC came down with Brown v. Board of Education during his time, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he had no reason not to conform.

This Christian Bakery on the other hand should have had the right not to serve LGBT customers, and the LGBT customers in turn had the right not to do business with them. Simple common sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2013)

Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that.  I could be wrong.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 3, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
> 
> I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that.  I could be wrong.



anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating. 

The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 3, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
> 
> I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that.  I could be wrong.



Do you remember what happened with Chick-Fil-A? Same deal. If it has a license to do business, that doesn't necessarily mean they have an obligation to serve anyone and everyone. I feel like since the First Amendment allows free speech and exercise of religion, the actions of this Bakery were justified. Just because you are a business, it is not contingent on you giving up your Constitutional rights.

What if these LGBT customers knew this was a Christian bakery?  Perhaps they wanted them to be put out of business because the knew that if they were denied service, they could sue? Some people do things out of spite, and I smelled a rat from the getgo.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2013)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
> ...



Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 3, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2013)

Study constitutional law, please.


----------



## shintao (Sep 3, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant?  Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.
> ...



Apparently not to serve gays, huh Chick-a-fil ?


----------



## bendog (Sep 3, 2013)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Well, as memory serves, the congress got there via the commerce clause, and the supreme court said, OK.  (which is why I suspect Roberts did not find Obamacare valid under the commerce clause) You may not like it, and I may disagree with it, but it's the law, and we live with it.  And, it's not so onerous.  Even those of us who disagreed, pointed out that eventually KFC with an non discriminatory policy would bury Maddux economically, regardless of who had better chicken.


----------



## bendog (Sep 3, 2013)

shintao said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



chick fil a didn't threaten to refuse service to GLBT folks, just to give money to those opposing inclusion.  That led to the boycott, and chick fil a backed down.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

bendog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




These complaints are filed under State law not Federal law so the commerce clause doesn't need to be the basis.  States can regulate intrastate businesses under the powers of the 10th.  The justification for Congress under the Commerce Clause applies to Federal Public Accommodation laws, which the SCOTUS has upheld, but Federal law does not mention sexual orientation as one of the protected classes.



>>>>


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 3, 2013)

bendog said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



They never backed down, it's own customers came in force to support them. The boycott was practically meaningless since it had little to no impact on it's revenue. Actually it turned out to be more profitable for them than not.


----------



## bendog (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



yes, but the question mentioned "constitution."  You're right that there would have to be an expansion of suspect classes to reach GLBT, and that's why, imo, Roberts didn't go near the commerce clause on Obamacare.  The conservatives on the Court have been trying to roll back the commerce clause since Earl Warren. LOL

States can always legislate more civil rights protections than the constitution provides.  GLBT folks are winning this issue, so there probably will not be any federal actions, beyond the SC striking down stuff like DOMA.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 3, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If you could be so kind, can you post for us the relevant laws pertaining to this discussion?


----------



## bianco (Sep 3, 2013)

eagle7_31 said:


> TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News
> 
> threats are something else.





_A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.

&#8220;Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,&#8221; read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery&#8217;s Facebook page. _


Nothing crooked morally or legally about baking a wedding cake for a lesbian couple...IMO.
Take the order from the customer, bake the cake, payment for it changes hands legally, all good.

Now, if one turns baking wedding cakes into a 'morals crusade', then one has to deal with the consequences.
Consequences that can be dire.

Also, there are discrimination laws.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



He made the statement that "The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?"

So for anyone interested in educating themselves, just as I did about federal laws, please go to Online Business Law | SBA.gov.

Also in your individual states, you will find state laws online to help you.

Until the other poster makes something more narrow than a comment about anti-discrimination laws, I can't go much further than this.  I hope it helps.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 3, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



They will be out of their home now. 
They have the right to stand their ground but doing so in Oregon wasn't a smart business move.


----------



## bianco (Sep 3, 2013)

The death threats must be investigated by the police.

The threats against suppliers who dealt with the bakery should also be investigated by the police.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You aren't getting the concept of open to the public.   The bakery advertised that it made wedding cakes.  The advertising is made to the general public.   A member of the public walks in and negotiates the price and design.   Public accommodation for business offered to the public at large.

It's not a private club, because admittance to the premises is not being restricted.  Gays can walk in and buy anything out of the display case they want.

Suppose they did not advertise that they made wedding cakes.  They made event cakes.  Birthday, Bar Mitzvah, baby shower cakes.   Someone walks in and says they want to order a wedding cake.  The owner says "sorry, we don't make wedding cakes".   But, they made a wedding cake for the leader of the church choir!   That doesn't matter.  It was the result of personal contact not public advertising. No public accommodation.  There is no offer to do business with the public at large.   

All they have to do is reopen someplace else and stop advertising that they make wedding cakes.  Problem solved.   They will make a wedding cake as a favor, to special friends.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see this as a bad thing, but a good thing.  It just needs some creative thinking.   Gays will simply have to get used to doing business only with those willing to do business with them.
> ...



It depends on what they advertise and where.  They aren't going to have people streaming in and out of their home.   They will have an outlet somewhere.  If they advertise for wedding cakes, they have to make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.  They aren't saying gays can't buy their chocolate chip cookies.  No one can demand they bake them a wedding cake if they don't advertise that they make wedding cakes.  You cannot walk into Dunken Donuts and demand a wedding cake.  But if the girl behind the counter has been known to make a wedding cake a time or two and you ask very nicely, maybe she'll make one for you too.  But she doesn't have to.

The answer is just too simple.   Any Christian baker that doesn't want to make cakes for same sex weddings should immediately stop offering these as part of their bakery service.   As the ruling in the Photographer's case said, they CAN use a disclaimer in their advertising saying that they cannot offer services to same sex couples because they have a religious objection.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



And if they make cakes for those special friends weddings and they show up as a business transaction under the business books, then they are still in the business of making wedding cakes for sale.

Now, if they do it "under the table" and not on the books, then if they are caught they face fines and criminal prosecution and loss of their business license.

>>>>


----------



## Connery (Sep 3, 2013)

*Merged threads*


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



That is not what the NM Supreme Court said, they said was:

"They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable anti discrimination laws."​
They said the business was free to state their opinion on the matter in their advertising, but make it clear that they comply with applicable law.  They did not say they can post a disclaimer and then discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.


>>>>


----------



## hazlnut (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...




Klein is a jewish name.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 3, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Nope.  

I went through this two years ago.  I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait.  They proved that I painted portraits.  They proved that I was paid for my work.  What they could not prove was that I offered the service of portraiture to anyone.   They really could not prove that I offered ANY artistic service for money.   Theoretically, they could have walked into my shop and asked to buy a painting off the wall and I could have refused them.  I could have said none of these are for sale and that would the end of it.   

They cannot use business transactions because business transactions are not information readily available to the general public that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that such services were offered for sale.   The place of public accommodation has to hold itself out as providing their services to the general public, not all services, just their services.   All they really have to do is not hold themselves out as providing wedding cake baking services.   

The Judge in the photographer's case was really clear on the subject.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 3, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



It's bollocks to assume you can as a one man show fix more cars, bake more bread, serve more people etc than you can with a team of people.

If you are a one man show you do not own a business you own a job and if you don't show up you don't get paid.

A business makes you money when you're not there.

For example we went away for 2 weeks in June and our business grossed over 50K in sales.

If I was a one man show it would have grossed zero.


----------



## Darkwind (Sep 3, 2013)

I don't do links so I haven't read the article.

I am curios, however, as to how the owners of the bakery knew that the couple was gay?

It isn't like it is stamped on their foreheads.

I smell an agenda going on here.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



I remember arguing with you about this. I am glad you changed your mind, and I owe you rep for it. I still don't understand why anyone would want someone who doesn't want to bake them a cake to be forced to do so.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 3, 2013)

WWJH?

(who Would Jesus Hate?)

Aren't these bakers really just using their religion as an excuse to hate?

I don't get that. I don't get why some here who SAY they're "Christian", really just use that as an excuse to hate.  There are some here who are just disguised members of the Westboro Baptist "church". They just spew MINDLESS hate and then blame it on their god. 

I believe churches should have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us and if they all had to actually act like "Christians" or forfeit their exemption, there would be a lot of money pouring in to the IRS.

Not to mention that they have some really scary sexual hangups ...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 3, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> I don't do links so I haven't read the article.
> 
> I am curios, however, as to how the owners of the bakery knew that the couple was gay?
> 
> ...



They probably wanted a same sex decoration or something and of course, we all know how Jesus/God would have smote them, right there on the spot.

There have been some other posts where I've wondered the same thing - Are business owners now going to demand that your concealed carry gun permit also show your sexual preference AND your country of citizenship?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 3, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.


The attitude that so many of them possess is what has made me so sick of them. They act like everyone else in the world owes them something, when we do not owe them a thing, especially if all that they are ever going to see is themselves and what it is that they think that they deserve.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

paperview said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have any idea how easy it is to fake a Facebook page? Sweet Cakes never had a Facebook page, but you managed to find a screenshot of their Facebook page and claim it justified what happened to them.

Fuck off.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Don't have to like, just have to abide by the law.
> ...



I read about when the arrest of Rosa Parks was justified because she broke the law. 

Is it remotely possible that you are the hypocrite?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Do fags have to abide by the law?
> ...



Not true.

The couple was withing the law, but wrong. The bakery broke the law, but was right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

editec said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> ...



Their business is still open and baking cakes, they just closed the store front.

I guess that makes you the idiot.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > shintao said:
> ...



Orly?

Chick-fil-A promises to stop giving money to anti-gay groups - Los Angeles Times



> Chick-fil-A has pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups and to back off political and social debates after an executives comments this summer landed the fast-food chain smack in the middle of the gay marriage debate.
> 
> The Civil Rights Agenda, which dubs itself the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group in Illinois, said Chick-fil-A agreed in meetings to stop donating to groups such as Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Such groups oppose same-sex marriage.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> WWJH?
> 
> (who Would Jesus Hate?)
> 
> ...



Aren't you really using your stupidity as an excuse to hate?

In the 5 years that Oregon has had a law that made it illegal to discriminate against gays they received a dozen complains, and half of them were ruled unjustified.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Uh, yes, they did have a FB page. I read it and I also saw that linked from a news story early today.

It has since been taken down. 

I can't say if that's real or not but its the same language as I read before.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I was just at their Facebook page this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sweet-Cakes-by-Melissa/352725392798?rf=218956318229708


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > WWJH?
> ...



IOW, I'm correct.

You're just another "christian" using your god to attack people.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> ...



Thank you - acknowledgement is enough.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I could go there right now and start a Luddly.Neddite page, would that make it yours?

Would it being taken down make it more yours?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I couldn't find it earlier, neither could at least one reporter.

Bakery That Refused to Make Gay Wedding Cake Shuts Doors - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Doesn't prove those screenshots were not Photoshopped, does it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Who did I attack?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Do fags have to abide by the law?
> ...



*Why?*

*Their faith in God informs them that homosexuality is filthy* and unholy and perverse and sinful and unclean and degenerate and emasculating and that association with homosexuals is either prohibited or otherwise condemned as consorting with those in whom God is greatly displeased.

And they live in a country whose history is steeped in the influence of that faith, and whose majority population adhere to such belief-systems.
*
Perhaps they saw it as a matter of Man's Law in conflict with God's Law, and chose God over Man?*


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Doesn't really matter.

Actions speak louder than words and they're using their god to spread hate. 

They're despicable, no different than Westboro scum.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> "..._they're using their god to spread hate._"



Or, because homosexuals find themselves on the Receiving End of religious allegations of uncleanness and sinfulness and perversity and such, Gays _perceive_ that as hate, and it is in their best interests to attempt to continue to hammer-away at it _as_ hate, on the outside chance that eventually a majority of the population will be won over to the Gays' own brand of hateful behaviors and perceptions, and thereby beat-down opposing opinion?


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Nope. Nor that it wasn't hacked.


----------



## Zona (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



For every business action, there is a reaction.  I don't like threatening them in any physical way, but I do believe people have the right to reject their ideology.  Be it boycotting, or putting the word out that they are (in their opinions) bigots and homophobic.   Thats not against the law.  That is the way business is done.  You cant go out and insult your potential customers or the general public really and not expect something to come from it.  As a business, YOU STAY IN THE MIDDLE.  If not, dont bitch about it.

I guess it comes down to is there enough homophobic people who support them or not.  Its simple business really.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 3, 2013)

The law in question.

Relating to sexual orientation discrimination; creating new provisions; amending ORS 10.030, 20.107, 30.860, 93.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > novasteve said:
> ...



Having children out of wedlock is a sin, and human cloning is immoral. Tattoos are clearly forbidden. Yet they are happy to support all of those things, just not the gays.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 3, 2013)

Sweet Cakes DOES have a Facebook page. Also, you can link to Melissa's personal page from Sweet Cakes.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 3, 2013)

I think that it is important that they be supported in their discrimination against homosexuals. Why, the next thing you know, they might be called upon to provide a cake for a divorce celebration, or maybe a bar miitzma, or even a democratic convention! It's a slippery slope, and a good Christain has to make a stand. After all, would Jesus have stood by the brick oven cooking a cake for a gay couple? NO! He might have made some wine for them, but not cake!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3I3pJkvLYw]Happy Birthday from Jesus - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



You are lucky that you are so stupid that you can't tell time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Or faked.

The weird part is that there are links to a page that doesn't exist, which led me to believe they didn't have a page.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 3, 2013)

paperview said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.   If you don't want your words seen, don't post them on line....pretty simple.  Especially if you connect those words to your business...as many who have been fired can attest.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Even if the story was true, they didn't talk to the owners. If you were honest you would admit that, and stop spreading your own version of hate.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 3, 2013)

novasteve said:


> You have to like us or else
> /



Someone who has a business who rejects christians of a certain ilk then posts such a hateful Facebook diatribe against christians would deserve to go under too.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Sweet Cakes DOES have a Facebook page. Also, you can link to Melissa's personal page from Sweet Cakes.



That page currently has a popup that says there is a redirect due to a duplicate page.

Think about that.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 3, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> When gay bars, clubs, coffee shops and restaurants refuse entry to women( pun not intended) should women boycott those venues?
> Is there a law preventing such elitist segregation?
> Reports of increasing assaults in PTown MA against the local fishing community.
> The breeders are being forced out.



You, of course, have links to women being refused entry to gay bars and the fishing community being forced out of P-Town.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 3, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



   Many gays are breeders too.   But you seem to think being a breeder is a bad thing.

Perhaps in your case it might be........


----------



## bodecea (Sep 3, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



Cool Story, Bro.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

bodecea said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Am I free to level consequences on you for believing a page designed to make someone look bad? Shouldn't you apologize for believing that people are hateful racists when they weren't?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

bodecea said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > You have to like us or else
> ...



No they wouldn't.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Nice defense.   Please provide  proof that that page is fake....including any denial of the couple that that is their page.  (would be a good start)


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 3, 2013)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Right after you post a link to the page with the racist remarks, or anything else that they posted anywhere that is remotely racist.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


>



Quite funny you folks only focus on the Old Testament. Try reading the whole bible, like that meme suggests. There's a New Testament in there too you know.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 4, 2013)

Simple question.

What if this was a homosexual bakery refusing service to Christians? Would any of you pro equality liberals be squealing your heads off right now? I highly think not. Think about it. And then think about how hypocritical you are.

Good night.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 4, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Simple question.
> 
> What if this was a homosexual bakery refusing service to Christians? Would any of you pro equality liberals be squealing your heads off right now? I highly think not. Think about it. And then think about how hypocritical you are.
> 
> Good night.



They wouldn't do that, having been on the receiving end of such bullshit for so long.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 4, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> When gay bars, clubs, coffee shops and restaurants refuse entry to women( pun not intended) should women boycott those venues?
> Is there a law preventing such elitist segregation?
> Reports of increasing assaults in PTown MA against the local fishing community.
> The breeders are being forced out.


I'm sure the gay establishments wouldn't mind being boycotted by women.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Okay, well; now that you're done making it all about you, care to discuss the subject of the OP?



I was discussing the subject.  Obviously, I'm on the side of the Christian cake bakers on this one.


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> Spreading hate?
> How were they spreading hate?
> Refusing to sell something to someone is not spreading anything.
> ...


The couple had previously ordered a cake from them, (though not a wedding cake) -- they were what every business owner wants: repeat customers.

When they ordered what they wanted to be a cake for a same-sex wedding, *the owner called them "abominations" and told them their "money was not equal.*"

The owner doesn't deny he called them _abominations_.

Because: Jesus!


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question.
> ...


"whatever you do unto the yeast of my brethren, you do unto me"


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 4, 2013)

*The Christian bakery should have displayed this sign in the window and then there wouldn't be an issue.*


----------



## Noomi (Sep 4, 2013)

^but they won't say that they refuse to serve gay people, they are too gutless.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 4, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > When gay bars, clubs, coffee shops and restaurants refuse entry to women( pun not intended) should women boycott those venues?
> ...



I used to tend bar in a gay bar in New York City and I never came up against anyone with an objection to me working there. If anything, just the opposite was true. Sometimes after work I would go out to gay bars and clubs with friends who I worked with. Quite often, there were straight women with us. I never witnessed a place that had a no straights or no women policy.


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> The law in question.
> 
> Relating to sexual orientation discrimination; creating new provisions; amending ORS 10.030, 20.107, 30.860, 93.


Link to a recent story and a 10 minute interview with the couple:

Sweet Cakes owners respond to firestorm over wedding cake decision | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon

First out of the gate dude says the bakery was "too much on his plate" - been in the works for a while, he has another 40 hour a week job...

He also says of the lesbian couple: ""I didn't want to be a part of her marriage"  then...says "there's a lot of closed minded people out there."

They both get bonus points for each of them using the phrase "shove it down [their] throat."

 They were not pressured by the state to close down, at all, both of them said.

Side note: they have 5 kids. "My kids need me." Mom says she used to think "wish I was back at home" and not in an open shop.  Less stress.

From the sounds of it, they are just fine with closing it down and working out of their house. (which, by the way, they are still subject to state laws).


----------



## editec (Sep 4, 2013)

This thread is predicated on a lie.

These people were not driven out of business. their business failed and this is their last ditch effort to get some free publicity

This entire thread is nothing but a bunch of USMB  homophobes getting their panties in a collective bunch over a big fat lie.

Morons.


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I  can't verify, so that is why I said _purported_ to be...

He had his own Facebook page as well (which links the Sweet Cakes page)

He seems to be the right-wing Blaze 'n Fox loving knuckle-dragger birther type, who even on a political rant about Obama can't help but hate them gheys.

*"Send him back to his socialist utopian gay rights loving homeland. And all the people that think like him can go too."*






A 2012 post from his own page.  Not likely hacked.











The story from February 6th detailed here: 

Aaron Klein's homophobic Obama rant (Photos) - Las Vegas Democrat | Examiner.com


----------



## martybegan (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So when do you propose his trial for Thoughtcrime take place?


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

martybegan said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Hey captain Hyperbole, he's free to say any damn thing he wants, I'm free to call him out on it and show the readers just how Jesusy he publicly extolls his _faith_.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Ouch!


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2013)

martybegan said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



So...he's been arrested?


(Why is it that some are confused about freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences when those around you realize you are a jerk by your own words out of your own mouth...or computer?)


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Do we know that the Christian Bakery Owners support such things?

And even if they did...

So, they cherry-picked the Bible for the parts that THEY want to believe-in or to consider operative as God's Law or Moral Law...

Big deal...

Some parts of ancient sacred texts are still relevant today...

Some parts are not...

Most folks hold that the ancient prohibitions against homosexuality still hold true...

Some folks do not...

And our secular government has - very recently- begun issuing rulings and laws and regulations as if those ancient prohibitions against homosexuality do not still hold true...

To the displeasure of much of the population - in contravention to the Consent of the Governed...

A thoroughly Conservative President and Congress, and a sizable Conservative contingent within the Supreme Court, may end-up reversing some of that recent social engineering...

Just as we now see Roe v Wade being slowly eroded in State after State after State, so many years after it first became operative...

Time will tell...

Meanwhile...

You really can't fault normal, decent people for shunning fudge-packers and carpet-to-carpet munchers, and being grossed-out by them, and wanting nothing to do with them...

Their faith tells them that such folks are deviants and unclean and an abomination in the eyes of God and Nature and Man...

And a lot of good folks who do NOT have such strong beliefs, also perceive Gays in that manner...

Generally speaking, Hate is an evil and unworthy thing, but there is ONE kind of Hate (or, at least, revulsion) which most of us are taught from childhood to be acceptable... ONE kind of Hate that is supposed to be OK...

The Hatred of Evil...

And, if homosexuality is tagged as Evil, or if its perception as an Evil Thing is valid, well...

The hating of EVIL things is considered a GOOD thing, right?

Sigh...

The People will sort this out in their own good time...


----------



## martybegan (Sep 4, 2013)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I accept them having to deal with the consquences of thier actions, if said consequences are from actual people boycotting or letting thier displeasure be known in a civil and proper manner. (picketing, mailing adverts, boycotts are all civil and proper).

What I do not accept is said aggrived parties being able to run to the government to force these people to do business with someone they do not want to, or not be a part of that buisness at all. What I also do not accept is any form of threat towards said people merely expressing thier own rights to thier opinions.


----------



## martybegan (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



In this case the aggrived parties have run to big momma government to make the bad people do what said aggrived parties want. Thats where the thoughtcrime comes in.


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

We pause this thread for a moment to bring you some sweetcakes.


----------



## longknife (Sep 4, 2013)

Well, they're telling the queers, fags, and lezzies to go f**k themselves by working out of their home. Good for them!!!!!


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2013)

longknife said:


> Well, they're telling the queers, fags, and lezzies to go f**k themselves by working out of their home. Good for them!!!!!



Christians should learn a lesson from these recent lawsuits and stop offering certain services to the public.   Instead put up a disclaimer "State and federal law prohibits my sale of wedding cakes"  or "State and federal law prohibits my photography services at weddings".

It's easy enough.  There can be no complaints then.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 4, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> What if this was a homosexual bakery refusing service to Christians?


If I were in that spot, I would either go to another bakery or make what I needed myself.   

God bless you always!!!   

Holly

P.S. Out of them two choices, I would make what I needed myself because doing so would then give this Christian girl something to be proud of.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What if this was a homosexual bakery refusing service to Christians?
> ...



How many bakeries refuse to make hot cross buns at Easter?   If people really want one, they go to a different bakery.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



Threats of bodily harm go beyond civil protest.  Those offended could have simply started a boycott the bigot campaign.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Well, they're telling the queers, fags, and lezzies to go f**k themselves by working out of their home. Good for them!!!!!
> ...




Why would a bakery lie and say "State and federal law prohibits my sale of wedding cakes" when it doesn't or  "State and federal law prohibits my photography services at weddings" when it doesn't?

Now they could post a sign that says:

State law requries that a business that provides sales to the general public requires that there be no discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.  As such this establishment chooses not to provide any wedding cake service so as not be required to provide equal service to homosexuals."​
That sign would be the truth would be the truth.



Or, just put a sign "We don't do wedding cakes."  If the bakery dosen't make wedding cakes at all, then there is no issue.  If a photographer doesn't shoot weddings at all, then there is no issue.

If a Muslim owns a deli and doesn't have pork products on the menu, there is no issue and no requirement under the law that they add it.


>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I don't know if Facebook format is different in different places, but that does not look like an authentic Facebook page to me.  Nor is it easy to believe the people who run that bakery used all those hateful words on Facebook.  That too just doesn't ring authentic to me.  I think if it was the real deal, the more honorable leftwing media would have been all over that--and probably most of the rightwingers too.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


I don't even know what them things are.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. My most favorite desert are plain chocolate brownies and is something that I am able to make myself.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



What a very long post to say "O HAI! I'm a bigot too!"


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



They abound.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> "..._What a very long post to say "O HAI! I'm a bigot too!_"



Nahhhhhhhh...

Just someone with the courage to say '_Fuck Political Correctness_', and to serve-up a more conservative and traditional perspective on one of today's hot-button topics...

To give voice to a genuine, sincere and deeply-held opinion and conviction held by vast millions, both here in the States, and around the World...

People who are growing increasingly weary and disgusted with the Gay Rights tactic of labeling as Bigot and Hate-Monger, everyone who dares to remind the audience of the Religious and Philosophical basis for Opposition to the Gay Movement...

People willing to take the brickbats, to help keep the Voice of the Opposition alive and well, to be considered alongside the otherwise-uncontested views of Latter Day Politically Correct Thought Police...

The Religious element of the Opposition does not hate Gays...

But they hate homosexuality...

They hate Evil, as they perceive it...

Hate the Sin, love the Sinner...

Nice try, though...


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> "..._They abound._"



They do, indeed.

And, percentage-wise, you'll find just as many on the Gay side of the _Straight-Gay Divide_ as you will on the Straight side...

Especially when somebody speaks-out in opposition to homosexuality nowadays...

More, even, under such circumstances...

Goose, meet gander...


----------



## bodecea (Sep 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Well, they're telling the queers, fags, and lezzies to go f**k themselves by working out of their home. Good for them!!!!!
> ...



Yep...just like muslims shouldn't be in the meat packing biz. 

Works for us.   ....christians stop working in fields where you actually have to treat gay customers like other customers.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > "..._What a very long post to say "O HAI! I'm a bigot too!_"
> ...



Fudge packers and carpet munchers? That's your quote. That's not compassion, that's sick, dude. 

I'm living with a lesbian couple, my sister and her partner. Their non-marriage outlasted my 13 year marriage, they've been together over twenty years. Their best friends are headed for thirty years of togetherness. Do you really think after all this time, it's just about the sex - or really, ever was? People fall in love and get married, - or did you get married because your wife was a hot piece of ass, damn all the rest of what makes a marriage?

That's kind of sad, really.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> The Religious element of the Opposition does not hate Gays...
> 
> But they hate homosexuality...
> 
> ...



The anti-discrimination element of those working for equality does not hate Christians...

But they hate discrimination...

They hate Evil, as they perceive it...

Hate the discrimination, love the true Christian...


>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2013)

I have worked in and among the Christian community in one way or another for almost all of my life.  I can say with a straight face and with the utmost confidence that:

One Christian may condemn abortion; another may be 100% pro choice; most are probably somewhere between those two extremes.

One Christian may condemn drinking, gambling, and sex outside of marriage while another may not only not have a problem with them, but may participate in all those things.

One Christian may so strongly believe in the literal Bible that he or she promotes including Creationism in the school curriculum while the next Christian will state just as strongly that it doesn't belong there.

I have witnessed up close and person the coming together of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and a few brands I couldn't identify to join in a common cause.  And I have witnessed up close and personal the very ecumenical New Mexico Conference of Churches joining alliance with our Horse Racing Association to oppose Indian gambling in the state while a number of other Christian groups were saying if the horse owners could do it, the Indians should be able to have a piece of the pie too and some others wanted to stop all gambling.

And a small number of Christians do believe homosexuality is a sin, some don't care one way or the other, while others have no problem at all with it and still others are gay themselves.

So to brand Christianity across the board as bigoted or hateful or whatever on this issue is. . .well. . . bigoted, hateful, or whatever.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > The Religious element of the Opposition does not hate Gays...
> ...



And if being a True Christian means shunning homosexuals because they are sinners?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I have worked in and among the Christian community in one way or another for almost all of my life.  I can say with a straight face and with the utmost confidence that:
> 
> One Christian may condemn abortion; another may be 100% pro choice.
> 
> ...



I'd say that this analysis is fairly accurate.

I would disagree that only a *SMALL* number of Christians (or Muslims, or Jews) view homosexuality as anathema, but, let's not quibble about percentages.

I *DO* agree that Christianity, like its counterparts, includes elements that (1) approve of homosexuality, (2) disapprove of homosexuality but will not actively and openly oppose public manifestations of and accommodations for same, and (3) actively oppose it.

I would go one step further and say that such 3-way divisions may be found in most branches of each of the major world religions (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Coptic, Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, Sunni, Shiite, etc.).

There is no hard-and-fast division between (1) and (2) and (3); it's merely a matter of scale and scope and percentages; and all three viewpoints have a legitimate place at the table, and are worthy  of consideration and respectful treatment.

The time when the Gay Rights Movement is capable of squelching opposition seems to be drawing to a close, as more people find the courage to speak their hearts in the face of such (attempted) browbeating.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2013)

Do they hate homosexuality, or just not want to participate in a same sex wedding?   No one should be required to take an active role in a same sex wedding if they object.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Faggots and their rabid supporters have become today's brown shirt Nazis.  ..



i feel the same way about Muslims who demand that their beliefs be respected and not insulted.

they have become like the Nazis, with their intolerance for freedom of thought & speech.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> And if being a True Christian means shunning homosexuals because they are sinners?



according to the New Testament, we are ALL sinners.

picking which sinners you will embrace and which ones you will insult & defame, is hypocrisy.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > And if being a True Christian means shunning homosexuals because they are sinners?
> ...



Moral Relativism, at best; Deflection and Partisanship, at worst.

The case may be sincerely and legitimately argued from both perspectives.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Moral Relativism, at best; Deflection and Partisanship, at worst.
> 
> The case may be sincerely and legitimately argued from both perspectives.



my ass!!

anyone who read the NT understand that in the eyes of God, we are ALL sinners.

what you must do is repent for your sins and accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, who died for your sins so that you may have grace through faith.

no one is perfect.  everyone sins.  only Christ is perfect.

if you will sell wedding cakes to someone you know is a thief, or a liar, or a cheat, or a criminal, alcoholic, or is greedy, but you won't sell cakes to a homosexual, then you are a hypocrite a poor example of a Christian.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> > Spreading hate?
> ...



Lie.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> ^but they won't say that they refuse to serve gay people, they are too gutless.



Because they are not refusing to serve them they just don't want to supply a wedding cake for the wedding.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Moral Relativism, at best; Deflection and Partisanship, at worst.
> ...



But as Christians we are to judge the actions and not the spiritual state of another.  And we are to refrain from evil, meaning we should not participate in what we believe to be opposed to God's will and/or teachings.  Therefore a Christian may be gay, may have gay children or siblings, have gay friends, have absolutely zero problem with any gay person, and still be opposed to gay marriage as not being Biblical or edifying.  And for that person, it would be wrong to sanction or attend a gay wedding.  (And yes, I know gay pastors who take that position even though they love their gay brothers and sisters in Christ very much.)

Narrow mind?   Unreasonable?  Perhaps, but it is the person's belief that is as worthy of respect as anybody else's belief so long as they stay out of everybody else's face about it.  I have no problem with gays, people of a different color, narrow-minded fundamentalist Christians, or anybody else who mind their own business or live their lives normally and stay out of my face.  Get in my face, and I'll have a problem wtih them regardless of the brand they represent.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Moral Relativism, at best; Deflection and Partisanship, at worst.
> ...



There are Sinners...

And then there are Abominations in the Eyes of the Lord...

There are folks who commit occasional infractions of the Deity's Laws out of weakness or mean-spirited-ness, but not infractions that are viewed as filthy and perverse and unclean.

And then there are folks who intentionally commit routine, frequent infractions of the Deity's Laws, infractions that ARE viewed as filthy and perverse and unclean.

Rather like Misdemeanors versus Felonies... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




A lot depends upon the jurisdiction, and who decides which is a Misdemeanor, and which is a Felony, I suspect.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> There are Sinners...
> 
> And then there are Abominations in the Eyes of the Lord...
> 
> ...



Jesus mentioned those sins and transgressions which he considered to be the most vile.

Homosexuality wasn't one of them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2013)

No one is shunning them or refusing to sell to them.  The baker has refused to participate in a same sex wedding.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> "..._Jesus mentioned those sins and transgressions which he considered to be the most vile. Homosexuality wasn't one of them._"


In Christianity, the New Testament is considered to override the Old, but the Old is still operative, to cover moral questions not superseded by New teaching.

Jesus of Nazareth was silent on the subject of homosexuality (insofar as I can recall); consequently, the teachings of the Old are applicable, in view of the silence from the New.

Or so it seems to me, in contemplating the way in which the two narratives are historically perceived to complement each other.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2013)

These issues are not insurmountable.  The baker could have baked a lovely cake, gone to the wedding to put the tiers together and very loudly and publicly prayed for forgiveness.    Don't refuse or do a deliberately bad job.  Just reduce the couple to tears and ruin the entire wedding, legally.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> In Christianity, the New Testament is considered to override the Old, but the Old is still operative, to cover moral questions not superseded by New teaching.
> 
> Jesus of Nazareth was silent on the subject of homosexuality (insofar as I can recall); consequently, the teachings of the Old are applicable, in view of the silence from the New.
> 
> Or so it seems to me, in contemplating the way in which the two narratives are historically perceived to complement each other.



You've clearly never been to Church or read the Bible.

The essence of the Old Testament is the Convenant with Israel.

God gave Israel the land of Canaan and his protection.

In exchange, the Israelites shall follow and honor his many laws listed in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.   These laws and regulations did not apply to non-Israelites and was never intended to be followed by non-Israelites.

The essence of the New Testament is the New Covenant with all mankind.  I cannot say whether or not the Old Covenant with the Israelites is now null & void, as the New Testament doesn't directly address that issue.  But what we do know for sure is that a NEW Covenant was made with the Gentiles and all Jews (Israelites) who chose to accept Jesus.

This new Covenant promises everlasting life and forgiveness for all sins, as long as one accepts that Christ is the Savior and Son of God.

All men sin and no man is perfect.  Only Christ was perfect.

All that is required by God to receive his Grace, is to accept Jesus as Messiah and do your best to not sin.  

Is homosexual sex a sin?  Of course.  But no greater a sin than murder, rape, theft, taking God's name in vane, dishonoring one's parents, etc.

And one thing IS certain:  God does not consider a violation of the Laws of Leviticus & Deuteronomy by a Gentile, to be a sin.  But even if God did, as long as one accepts Christ as their Savior, these sins don't matter.

A so-called Christian who ignores rape, murder, deceit, hate, lust, greed, drunkedness, dishonesty, but makes great effort to focus on homosexuality, is a pathetic hypocrite.

Christ doesn't like hypocrites.  Its a sin.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2013)

No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners.  It is really none of their business.

They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing.   If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin.  If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > In Christianity, the New Testament is considered to override the Old, but the Old is still operative, to cover moral questions not superseded by New teaching.
> ...



Depends on the Church, old boy... it depends on the Church... 

Oh, and, yes, I've read the Bible...

And many of the Judaic commentaries, as well as a few of the Christian ones...

And came to understand them, as best I could, in college, while taking a few Theology courses to round-out my GDR's...

I did well in those courses and my professors thought I had some native talent for that so-called discipline, but, in truth, it wasn't something that I wanted to pursue any further...

And I read the Q'uran cover-to-cover after 9-11, and many of its shorter commentaries, as well...

It's just been a long time since I've dealt with that stuff (order of precedence of teachings, basis for philosophical positions on homosexuality, etc.) in any significant depth...


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners.  It is really none of their business.
> 
> They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing.   If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin.  If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.



Personally, I happen to think that there's more right than wrong with such thinking; after all, did not The Founder (Jesus of Nazareth) serve-up a '_judge not, lest ye be judged_' maxim or two? Did he not serve-up a '_Let he who is without sin cast the first stone_' maxim or two? And I ask myself, how can a Christian ignore such maxims, which go to the core of that Belief System?

Then again, I understand the arguments in favor of allowing Christians to judge, as well, who will argue that Jesus gave copious examples of man judging man's sinful behaviors and that Jesus did not intend for his teachings to be used as a cover for moral relativism nor aberration.

It's a dilemma, alright, and folks who practice that Belief System come to the best conclusions that their own intellects and hearts and spirit permit them to reach.

That's one of the reasons why I don't condemn any of the three types of Believers in this context (those tolerant of homosexuality, those who condemn but do not actively oppose, and those who both condemn and oppose).


----------



## paperview (Sep 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Pauli007001 said:
> ...



I'll give you this.  You do work hard to live up to your name.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> "_These issues are not insurmountable. The baker could have baked a lovely cake, gone to the wedding to put the tiers together and very loudly and publicly prayed for forgiveness.  Don't refuse or do a deliberately bad job.  Just reduce the couple to tears and ruin the entire wedding, legally._"



*That was wicked, evil, and funny-as-hell... well done! ... *


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



When you call someone racist for disagreeing with the president, is that not bigoted? When you tear down a woman for not being liberal or pro choice, is that not being bigoted? Think about it, who are the real bigots here? When you berate a man of faith for standing up for his values, is that not being bigoted? When a liberal calls anyone from the south a racist redneck, is that not being bigoted?

Clean up around your front door first.


----------



## Zona (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> We pause this thread for a moment to bring you some sweetcakes.



Well, as a retired navy guy I have to say........thats so freaking hot!  

Now back to these 'religious' bakers who live by the Bible.  Do they refuse service to people who have had a divorced people who have tattoo'.s, or people who eat sea food etc etc.  Did you know its a sin for a woman to speak in church or wear gold there as well.  No cake for them?  

Selective belief makes you a hypocrite in my book.


----------



## Zona (Sep 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners.  It is really none of their business.
> 
> They should judge whether their own conduct is a sin and whether accepting the normalcy of homosexuality is the sin they are committing.   If a gay couple got married it is none of my concern whether or not that is a sin.  If I went to the wedding that would be my sin.



I agree.  Wait, what?  Who hacked this account..


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.  I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc.  But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.
> 
> Just STFU gay people.  I don't care about your aberration.
> 
> ...



Well, liberals support gayness, as long as they're Democrats. Any time a Republican is shown to be Gay they're on them like stink on shit.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 4, 2013)

Zona said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners.  It is really none of their business.
> ...



Wow, Zona, you are dense.


----------



## Days (Sep 4, 2013)

yep, you were.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant.



MANY Christians believe that the New Covenant totally overrides the Old Covenant and deems the Old Covenant to be completely & totally null and voided.

I don't fully agree with this, but what is clear is that the laws and regulations didn't apply to Gentiles back then and certainly don't apply now that the New Covenant has been ordained.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners.  It is really none of their business.
> ...



Sigh.

That was not a maxim, nor was it directed at his followers. One would think that someone who took classes about the Bible would know the simplest truths.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You don't even know what my name means.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Sep 4, 2013)

Well, when I read the Bible, I just read the words that Jesus said (okay, I can hear it coming already...the words he "allegedly" said).

If you're going to live your life by the Bible, I don't see how you can go wrong by just doing exactly as Jesus said to do.  Which seemed to be mostly about loving and not judging.  Right?


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Well, when I read the Bible, I just read the words that Jesus said (okay, I can hear it coming already...the words he "allegedly" said).
> 
> If you're going to live your life by the Bible, I don't see how you can go wrong by just doing exactly as Jesus said to do.  Which seemed to be mostly about loving and not judging.  Right?



Its very sad how Christians who want to judge and point fingers, prefer to ignore Jesus' words and be more like Paul, who loved to judge and point fingers.

Hell, Paul even said that women shouldn't speak in Church, can NEVER hold a position of authority over men, and must never braid their hair.

yeah, Jesus went ----------------->this way...... while Mr. Paul went <------------- that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant.
> ...



Many non Christians believe that Columbus proved the Earth is round, what's your point?


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Many non Christians believe that Columbus proved the Earth is round, what's your point?



that's a pretty horrible and offensive analogy.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> "..._I don't know where you went to college, or who your professors were, but you should get your money back. The New Testament does not override the Old Testament anymore than the Mosaic covenant overrides the Abrahamic covenant._"



Many scholars and their students hold differently. My money at the time was well-spent.

We are not just talking about Covenants.

We are also talking about canon law, old and new, and order of precedence, and the validity of the Old in areas of law in which the New is silent.

There are a variety of Old laws which Gentiles, for example, are not obliged to subscribe to; laws with respect to diet and circumcision and several other thematic areas.

But there are a variety of Old laws which Gentiles, for example, are obliged to subscribe to; macro level law; various Commandments, prohibitions, encouragements, morality lessons, and ethical constraints.

Much of this was solidified and clarified by apostolic and Church Fathers commentaries during the early centuries that The Faith was extant, and much more solidified and codified over the course of time through ecumenical collaborations and conclaves and findings and pronouncements.

The two Testaments complement each other and The Old is used just as often as the New - more, perhaps - when reaching back for the basis for canon law or a moral point - repeatedly, every day of the week, all around the world.

And, when the New collides with the Old, the New is given precedence as being the operative or controlling authority.

You, for one, do not perceive that the Old Testament is still operative, in thematic areas in which Jesus of Nazareth and his First Followers remain silent.

Others perceive otherwise.

I really don't feel like getting into a pissing contest over religion this evening.

Either way, it's not the end of the world, eh?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Many non Christians believe that Columbus proved the Earth is round, what's your point?
> ...



Why? Because the public school system in the US actively teaches that nonsense as historical fact? If it offends you, tell them to stop.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Many scholars and their students hold differently. My money at the time was well-spent.
> 
> We are not just talking about Covenants.
> 
> ...



I want to see proof of this.

I want to see RCC or other denominational official declarations that certain codes & regulations in the OT are valid and applicable upon all Gentiles.  

otherwise you're just talking out of your ass to defend bigotry against Gays.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners.  It is really none of their business.
> ...



It is the only way the Bible can be correctly interpreted.  It took me years and many conversations with different theologians to figure it out.  Jesus admonishes Christians not to judge the sin of others more than anything else.  When he saved Mary Magdalene he didn't tell her to run out and tell all the other whores they were sinners.  

If the baker was a Christian she  had an obligation not to sin by participating in a same sex wedding.  Not to judge the couple, but not to bring that measure of sin into her own heart.


----------



## Zona (Sep 4, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



But but but, we got along so well...now all you do is ignore me.    Simply because I called you out.  

Pic or GTFO...remember?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> "..._I want to see proof of this. I want to see RCC or other denominational official declarations that certain codes & regulations in the OT are valid and applicable upon all Gentiles_..."



You can WANT all you like, mine good colleague, but I don't feel like playing any longer on this one, tonight.

You can begin your quest for more knowledge on the subject with a simple-simon Layman's Question to your local pastor:

"Pastor, am I obliged to abide by the Ten Commandments?"

That should get you started on the path to Enlightenment on this subject.



> "..._otherwise you're just talking out of your ass to defend bigotry against Gays._"



No.

All that means is that you remain unsatisfied as to the religous basis for such perceptions on the part of so many.

It has nothing to do with bigotry.

It has to do with good and decent folks shunning Abomination and Perversity and Uncleanness.


----------



## Zona (Sep 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Well, when I read the Bible, I just read the words that Jesus said (okay, I can hear it coming already...the words he "allegedly" said).
> 
> If you're going to live your life by the Bible, I don't see how you can go wrong by just doing exactly as Jesus said to do.  Which seemed to be mostly about loving and not judging.  Right?



But But But, LEVITICUS!!!


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > "..._I want to see proof of this. I want to see RCC or other denominational official declarations that certain codes & regulations in the OT are valid and applicable upon all Gentiles_..."
> ...



your claim, your burden of proof.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> "...It is the only way the Bible can be correctly interpreted..."



Incorrect, or so I believe. That is the way which YOU have found to seem correct, but that perception does not hold true for a great many others, of course.



> "..._Jesus admonishes Christians not to judge the sin of others more than anything else.  When he saved Mary Magdalene he didn't tell her to run out and tell all the other whores they were sinners_..."



Correct.

But he followed-up his forgiveness with the admonition...

"_Now, go thou and sin no more._"

Thereby labeling prostitution as a sin, and admonishing her not to fall into that particular sin again.

Jesus of Nazareth, too, was capable of drawing lines in the sand against evil, and frequently did.

And, in thematic areas in which he and his disciples were silent, it's natural to fall back upon the law from which his own ministry sprang...

Doesn't mean that approach is right, of course, but it's damned logical, and it's a fairly commonplace perspective, despite the protestations of some here...


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 4, 2013)

​


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > "...It is the only way the Bible can be correctly interpreted..."
> ...




and yet we know that all humans were considered born into this world with the burden of sin, and no man could attain a state of sinlessness.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> "..._your claim, your burden of proof._"



Go ask your pastor that question I just served-up.

That will be your proof.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Many scholars and their students hold differently....



name them.




> ...My money at the time was well-spent.
> 
> We are not just talking about Covenants.
> 
> ...



prove it with evidence.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> "..._and yet we know that all humans were considered born into this world with the burden of sin, and no man could attain a state of sinlessness._"



Misdemeanor versus Felony sin?

Venial versus Mortal sin? 

One-time shots versus repeat-offenders?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Many scholars and their students hold differently. My money at the time was well-spent.



Many people hold a lot of ideas that are wrong, I am not responsible for their idiocy. 



Kondor3 said:


> We are not just talking about Covenants.
> 
> We are talking about canon law, old and new, and order of precedence, and the validity of the Old in areas of law in which the New is silent.



No, you are talking about that, I am pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about.



Kondor3 said:


> There are a variety of Old laws which Gentiles, for example, are not obliged to subscribe to; laws with respect to diet and circumcision and several other thematic areas.
> 
> But there are a variety of Old laws which Gentiles, for example, are obliged to subscribe to; macro level law such as various Commandments, and prohibitions, and encouragements, and morality lessons, and ethical constraints.



Not true.

You seem to think that ceremonial and moral law were meant to apply to different people in different ways. It doesn't work that way.

I really don't want to get into a theological discussion on this board, but you seriously are misinformed about how this works. Christians are held to the same standards as the Levites, not the standards of the Gentiles. The major difference is that we no longer have to bring a sacrifice to God for our sins, because Jesus took care of that for us. 

Paul explained all of this in Romans.



Kondor3 said:


> Much of this was solidified and clarified by apostolic and Church Fathers commentaries during the eary centuries that The Faith was extant, and much more solidified and codified over the course of time through ecumenical collaborations and conclaves and findings and pronouncements.



No, all of that was distorted and added to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to justify incorporating pagan religions into the teachings of the Catholic church.



Kondor3 said:


> The two Testaments complement each other and The Old is used just as often as the New - more, perhaps - when reaching back for the basis for canon law or a moral point - repeatedly, every day of the week, all around the world.
> 
> And, when the New collides with the Old, the New is given precedence as being the operative or controlling authority.



The only people that think the New collides with the Old are people who don't understand them. 



Kondor3 said:


> You, for one, do not perceive that the Old Testament is still operative, in thematic areas in which Jesus of Nazareth and his First Followers remain silent.



I have a question for you, what the fuck makes you think I don't know that? Is it your arrogance that makes you think that your studying it in school trumps my actual degree in theology?

FYI, the Old Testament applies across the board. even to circumcision. Like I said earlier, Paul made that perfectly clear.



Kondor3 said:


> Others perceive otherwise.



Other than what you think I think? 

Tell me it ain't so.



Kondor3 said:


> Either way, it's not the end of the world, eh?



Either way, you still need to get a refund.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> "..._prove it with evidence._"



No. Go ask your pastor the Ten Commandments question. That should serve to reinforce the point.


----------



## Esmeralda (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> *A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.*
> 
> ...



I understand OP what you mean by how they were treated, and it makes me feel the same way. It is one thing to protest what seems to be a bias and prejudice by a business; it's another to threaten and harrass the people out of business, to threaten their children, etc.  

If people are going to do that kind of thing, it just weakens their case for equal and fair treatment.  

I do think in our country, and as far as the capitalism ethic goes, if you are going to be in business, your business has to be open to everyone.  This is the proverbial slippery slope. If these people refuse to bake a cake for someone because they disagree with their lifestyle, all over the country people can bar customers from their businesses because they don't like the way they live or dress or their religion or whatever.  There has to be one standard and one law for everyone.  If you want to be in business, you  have to make your business open to everyone.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > "..._prove it with evidence._"
> ...



no?

no, you're not going to back up your claims with evidence?

that's a shame, my friend.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Many scholars and their students hold differently. My money at the time was well-spent.
> ...



Because someone holds an idea that conflicts with your own, is not prima facie evidence that they are an idiot.



> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > We are not just talking about Covenants.
> ...



You are TRYING to point that out, but you are not succeeding.



> "...Not true. You seem to think that ceremonial and moral law were meant to apply to different people in different ways. It doesn't work that way..."



I really and truly don't know what you are trying to say here. I understand the words and phrases but I am uncertain exactly what you are trying to do with them here.

Perhaps it's a deficiency on my part.




> "..._I really don't want to get into a theological discussion on this board, but you seriously are misinformed about how this works. Christians are held to the same standards as the Levites, not the standards of the Gentiles. The major difference is that we no longer have to bring a sacrifice to God for our sins, because Jesus took care of that for us. Paul explained all of this in Romans_..."



Christians are, indeed, held to the same standards as the Jews of old; with the exception of dietary laws and circumcision and some other exceptions noted by the Church Fathers. There is no disagreement between us on this point. And, like you, I have no desire nor energy to hijack a Straights-and-Gays Rights thread to dwell overly-long upon religion and perspectives and the nuances of canon law.



> "...No, all of that was distorted and added to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles to justify incorporating pagan religions into the teachings of the Catholic church..."



Again, agreed. There is no difference between us on this score.



> "..._The only people that think the New collides with the Old are people who don't understand them_..."



Incorrect. The doctrine of Salvation Through Faith is just one of several radical departures from the doctrines extant in the Old; on both the canonical and philosophical levels.



> "..._I have a question for you, what the fuck makes you think I don't know that? Is it your arrogance that makes you think that your studying it in school trumps my actual degree in theology?_"



First of all, throttle back your hostility. I would not take that tone with you, regardless of whether or not I agree with you.

Second, what-in-the-world makes you think that I had any clue, in advance of this exchange, that you held a degree in theology?

Arrogance? Hardly. I am simply a Layman that has done more studying and reading and contemplation on theocratic history, dogma, and the principles of precedence and supercession than your average poster. I claim no particular superiority of knowledge nor perspective.

Also, for someone who supposedly holds a degree in theology, you are far more hostile towards your colleagues, when it suits your purposes, than a Man of the Cloth is stereotypically perceived to be capable of acting, at the drop of a hat; consequently, my guess is, that if you DO hold a degree in theology, that you are not an active and practicing Cleric; merely someone who took a piece of paper in that field, and decided to do something else as a career.

My own handful of coursework included such titles as: "History of Christianity", "Judeo-Christianity as the Basis for Western Society", "The Impact of Christianity Upon Politics", and "Religious Dogma in the Modern Age" - along with a couple of intro-level courses to Eastern Religions, to round-out the collection - not quite enough for a Minor, but damned close.

And, my own professors were a mixture of Religious Scholars and Political Scholars, including one memorable class co-hosted by one of each. The politically-focused or society-focused coursework was designed to illustrate, among other things, the practical effects of both dogma and repeated interpretations and loss of original content and meanings upon modern thinking and law and society at large.

I will happily concede to you a superior knowledge of dogma.

I reserve for myself the right to decide who is closer to being right about practical application and commonplace perceptions related to such application.



> "..._FYI, the Old Testament applies across the board. even to circumcision. Like I said earlier, Paul made that perfectly clear_..."



I learned a different outcome, re: the circumcision thing; in that Paul (from what I remember) had fought with the Council of Jerusalem to be able to hold that such practices were preventing the early Church from gaining new converts, and that he was ultimately successful in getting them to relent about such matters, when it came to the Gentiles.

But, it's been a while, and I could very well be wrong about that.



> "..._Either way, you still need to get a refund._"



I'm content, and that's all that counts, in the final analysis.

Your degree in theology was probably undertaken in a strictly theological setting (mindset) and focused primarily upon dogma and the ways in which is is applied to doctrine and faith.

My lesser studies in that same vein were tempered with a very large dose of secularism and political science and focused more upon multiple interpretations and the ways in which those manifest in society and how they influence our laws and events.

Both approaches to Religious Studies are valid, depending on what you hope to achieve.

My school did the job that I asked them to do... they did their part... they can keep the money.

And, we've (unintentionally) hijacked this thread long enough... if we need to continue this (another day), we can meet up in the Religion forum.

Or not.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...



Tell you what...

I'll go dig up a couple of related examples of precedence or supercession, if you go to your Pastor, ask the Ten Commandments question, and he comes back and tells you that you are NOT obliged to abide by them, because the New Testament supersedes the Old, okay?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 4, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Because someone holds an idea that conflicts with your own, is not prima facie evidence that they are an idiot.



Anyone that thinks Columbus proved the Earth is round is an idiot.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Because someone holds an idea that conflicts with your own, is not prima facie evidence that they are an idiot.
> ...



Shit... do you mean to say that the Earth isn't FLAT? Dayyyuummmm!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 4, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.



They shouldn't have received threats to their safety. But they deserve every bit of lost business. They willingly flouted Oregon discrimination law out of their hatred for the gays - (oh, right, they don't 'hate' the gays, they just hate everything about the gays that makes them not straight -  such a distinction) - I fail to see how any reasonable business owner could expect to get away with that. Oregon law is public and discrimination laws should be among the first laws that business owners learn about if they give a crap about actually abiding by the law.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 4, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.  I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc.  But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.
> 
> Just STFU gay people.  I don't care about your aberration.
> 
> ...



Blue eyes are an "aberration" by your standard.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Sep 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.  I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc.  But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.
> ...



Yep.  That's my point.  People react badly to the word "aberration," when really they shouldn't.  Although, I will admit, it often carries a negative connotation.  But I don't mean it in a negative manner, just calling it what it is.  A departure from the norm.  It's pretty easy to see what the norm is when you consider male and female sex organs.  Pretty obvious what's SUPPOSED to happen.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 5, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Faggots and their rabid supporters have become today's brown shirt Nazis.  ..



This coming from the bigot who would love to see gays stoned to death.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 5, 2013)

Noomi said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Do fags have to abide by the law?
> ...



Neither were in the wrong.  Before we started drawing bulls-eyes on the perceived "politically incorrect", the bakers had the right to refuse, and the couple had the right to shop elsewhere. And it ended there.  
Today there is targeting, and a lopsided tolerance. The ones that demand it, have none.


----------



## Euroconservativ (Sep 5, 2013)

Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 5, 2013)

Euroconservativ said:


> Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.



When there is no legit reason to oppose marriage, one must wonder if the opposition is not, in fact, homophobia.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 5, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> > Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.
> ...



Not many people oppose marriage. But a marriage is between a man and a woman.  Any deviation from that is not a marriage.  But, this is what liberals always have to do, change the definition of a word in order to push their agenda.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 5, 2013)

theHawk said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Euroconservativ said:
> ...



No it's not. Not in Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire and New York. They all have same sex marriage. It doesn't matter what words you are changing to push your agenda, sir. They are married in the eyes of God, man, and the State. Other states will be falling like dominoes in the face of the federal decisions of this past summer.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 5, 2013)

A business is judged on the quality of their product and how they treat their customers

If a bakery makes horrible cakes then the customer is justified to let the community know that they make bad cakes
If a bakery refuses to serve you, the customer is justified to let the community know why they weren't served


----------



## theHawk (Sep 5, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I see, so because "the state" says so, I must also believe likewise.  Even though the people of those states didn't pass any pro-gay marriage agenda.  In fact it is usually done by one activist judge overturning the will of the people, because the people almost always vote in favor of traditional marriage---See California.

I also doubt that "in the eyes of God" these queers are "married".  Everyone knows the Bible makes it quite clear that homosexuality is an abomination.  But, I digress, perhaps BDBoop knows God's feelings towards gays than what the Bible tells us.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 5, 2013)

A baker has the right to say "We refuse to serve gay weddings and are willing to face the consequences"

Do they really think their decisions have no consequences?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 5, 2013)

theHawk said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Who is making you have a gay marriage?   Probably the same people making you have an interracial marriage and a interfaith marriage.

The BASTARDS!!!!!!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...




If you don't mean it in a negative manner you shouldn't use a word with negative connotations.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2013)

Euroconservativ said:


> Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.



bwaaaahhhhhh.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> A baker has the right to say "We refuse to serve gay weddings and are willing to face the consequences"
> 
> Do they really think their decisions have no consequences?



exactly the point I made earlier.

A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone he wants but he also has to accept the consequences if his action displease the market he serves.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2013)

theHawk said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Euroconservativ said:
> ...



Wrong.

A marriage is between a man and woman of the same sex, race,  and religion, and it is arrange by and approved by the parents of the bride and groom.  Any deviation from _that_ isn't marriage.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 5, 2013)

If the Christian bakers lose their business, they should go to their pastor and explain that they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, just like God wants. They should explain how the reaction to their decision caused a public outrage and it drove them out of business

The pastor can explain that it is all part of Gods plan and they will get their reward in heaven


----------



## paperview (Sep 5, 2013)

Time for an oldie but goodie -- 
*Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else   *



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw]Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> If the Christian bakers lose their business, they should go to their pastor and explain that they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, just like God wants. They should explain how the reaction to their decision caused a public outrage and it drove them out of business
> 
> The pastor can explain that it is all part of Gods plan and they will get their reward in heaven



So much for the golden rule huh?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



In all but one of those states you cited same sex marriage was imposed by either judicial or legislative action on people who had already indicated that it was rejected.   The State cannot declare any marriage legal in the eyes of God.  The State simply cannot declare what the Will of God is, unless the State is God, or obama is God.

The state can declare gays married for its own purposes but it cannot declare gays married for the purposes of any other person in the state.   What has happened is the same thing that happened with the Roe decision.  There will be issues tied up in the courts forever after.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2013)

theHawk said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



You can believe whatever the fuck you'd like to believe, but unless you're the authority issuing marriage licenses, your belief doesn't really count much. Sorry to bust your self-righteous bubble, but no one has to ask YOU for approval to get married, its amazing you would think otherwise.



> I also doubt that "in the eyes of God" these queers are "married".  Everyone knows the Bible makes it quite clear that homosexuality is an abomination.  But, I digress, perhaps BDBoop knows God's feelings towards gays than what the Bible tells us.



Sorry, but is this the religion forum? Who gives a shit? The God you use to avoid facing the fact you yourself are a raging fag is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If the Christian bakers lose their business, they should go to their pastor and explain that they refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, just like God wants. They should explain how the reaction to their decision caused a public outrage and it drove them out of business
> ...



They at least should be guest speakers at various churches explaining to the congregation how they were persecuted and hounded out of business for refusing to dishonor their beliefs.  They should not stop at their town or city but travel the nation and tell their story nationwide.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2013)

bodecea said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I bet Hawk's parents wasn't arranged by his grandparents. I bet they actually picked each other to marry, maybe even "dated" beforehand without even having a chaperon present. That disgusts me, its a marriage conceived in filth. That makes Hawk a bastard.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Are you hoping they will encourage other Christian business owners to go out of business for God?
_
Sorry but wilfully and blatantly breaking anti-discrimination law against your customers is basically asking to be put out of business._


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

In my opinion the bakers should have to bake a cake for the gay couple.  The bakers should NOT have to deliver the cake to a gay wedding, however.  It is sort of the same principle as the photographer who was willing to photograph the gay couple at his studio, but not willing to photograph the wedding itself.  Serve the public who come to your premises on a non discriminatory basis yes--but having to attend something which you disapprove is something else.

Now then, any of us have every right to patronize any business we choose or not patronize any business we choose.  And nobody has a right to tell us who we are required to do business with.

But whether it is a bigoted baker or a bigoted customer or a bigoted broadcaster or whatever, going after him or her, coercing his/her customers, picketing, protesting, intimidating suppliers or advertisers, etc., intentionally and deliberately attempting to destroy him/her, purely because a person holds views you don't share - that is pure evil.  And it should be acceptable to none of us.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

theHawk said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...




Before you state something as "fact" you should check your facts:

#1 - In the majority of States that recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage the approval of that action was done either be legislative action or through voter approved referendum.

#2 - In no state where there is Same-sex Civil Marriage has it been implemented by court action has it been the result of "one activist judge".  In each and every case the initial judges ruling was appealed and approved by the appeals process and ruled on by the State Supreme Court based on the non-discrimination provisions of that States Constitution.  In no state has SSCM been implemented through the ruling of one judge.



>>>>


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

theHawk said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Euroconservativ said:
> ...



Well, Hawk...

You had several bricks thrown at you for taking a stand and speaking your mind...

But at least you had the courage to do so, knowing full-well that you'd catch hell for it...

For that, you have the respect of a great many around here, even those who won't dare to show it publicly...

On my end, you got a 'Thanks' and a Rep; full credit for courage...

Not to mention that a very great many folks believe, as you do, that a marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and that the secular state has finally gone too far in advancing a Liberal agenda that needs to be stopped in its tracks, and its initial gains reversed, as a more conservative government looms in the future, to counter the mistakes of the uber-Liberal socialist-caliber social engineering that has been transpiring since early 2009...

One way or another, the American People will sort this out, and, in the meantime, people who refuse to be browbeaten into silence, and who speak their minds, always get Bonus Points from the majority of their fellow citizens who prize a traditional perspective and the courage to see that perspective rehabilitated and made dominant once again...

Nicely done.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Good idea

They can hit the church picnic circuit and preach about their sacrifice of their business for Gods will.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> "..._Good idea. They can hit the church picnic circuit and preach about their sacrifice of their business for Gods will._"


Grand idea. But take it viral. The more voters who become aware and incensed of the plight of the bakers and many others like them, the more who will be likely to vote-in a conservative government that will work to overturn some of the social engineering that has been served-up in recent years. That, too, is coming. Especially after this Syria business. Attacking Syria will be the biggest favor that the Dimocrats could possibly do for the Repugs; well, after the shredding of DOMA and such, that is.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



But regardless of the issue--whether same sex marriage or any other issue--the state Supreme Court or the federal Supreme Court is nevertheless a court that is intended to interpret the law, sort out conflicts that exist between two opposing laws or whatever.  The Court was never intended to make law at any level.

Therefore, it should be the state legislature, whether on their own initiative or via public referendum, that makes the law the law.  And if a state determines, quite rightfully, that existing marriage laws discriminate against nobody--which none of them do--every man, woman, and child is treated exactly the same--then no court should be able to change that law into something different purely because they think the law doesn't go far enough or isn't a good law.

We have a terrible situation in this state right now because activist judges are authorizing same sex marriage outside the juridiction of the state legislature.  Regardless of your opinions on same sex marriage, that should never be acceptable.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I am hoping that other Christian businesses adjust their business practices to stop offering some of their services to the general public and retain the right to perform favors for their personal associates and those whom those associates recommend.    Christian businesses should move part of their business offerings underground where they have more control over that business.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> In my opinion the bakers should have to bake a cake for the gay couple.  The bakers should NOT have to deliver the cake to a gay wedding, however.  It is sort of the same principle as the photographer who was willing to photograph the gay couple at his studio, but not willing to photograph the wedding itself.  Serve the public who come to your premises on a non discriminatory basis yes--but having to attend something which you disapprove is something else.
> 
> Now then, any of us have every right to patronize any business we choose or not patronize any business we choose.  And nobody has a right to tell us who we are required to do business with.
> 
> But whether it is a bigoted baker or a bigoted customer or a bigoted broadcaster or whatever, going after him or her, coercing his/her customers, picketing, protesting, intimidating suppliers or advertisers, etc., intentionally and deliberately attempting to destroy him/her, purely because a person holds views you don't share - that is pure evil.  And it should be acceptable to none of us.



So, a serious question Fox:

Since when should a Christian have to place the will of men over the will of God? This is something not so easily done for those who are devout in the Christian faith. Yes, I have two gay friends who tolerate my Christianity just as much as I tolerate their homosexuality, but the key difference between us and that bakery and that particular gay couple, is that we don't tell each other what is wrong with the way we believe. We don't believe in political correctness, and I see this instance with the bakery as it gone amok.  

If I can tolerate my friends being homosexual, and they can tolerate my views against homosexuality, then for the love of me, why couldn't that homosexual couple have enough dignity to respect the beliefs of that bakery? They could have simply moved on. It boggles my mind. It seems to me that those of the LGBT community want tolerance to be a one way street, that's not how I was raised, and that is most certainly not the way I was taught.


----------



## bendog (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



St Paul preached a close society in which everything was shared.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I usually am on the same page with you Katz, but not this time.  Nobody--Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever--should have to hide their business due to political correctness.  All that is required to fix this is to stop applying the politically correct nonsense to off premises functions.  Serve those who come to your place of business without discrimination yes.  But retain your unalienable right to go where you choose to go.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...




So your opinion is that the courts should have taken no action to overturn ban's on interracial marriage bans (the first being California in 1948) despite non-discrimination provisions in the State and Federal Constitutions?


That blank people should have just sucked it up?


>>>>


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Here's an idea...

The Bakers, and every single soul serving-up product and services to the public, and who object to being forced to provide services to those whom they belief practice aberration and uncleanness in the eyes of the Lord, should find a way, philosophically, to provide such product and services, so as to remain in compliance with laws that force them into that mode...

And, while complying, work very hard, amongst themselves, their elected representatives, their friends, families and communities, to overturn such laws and such interpretations of laws, and to vote into power those who side with a mindset which does not force people into business relationships with those which their Faith teaches them to shun, but, rather, permits such business-folk to choose for themselves...

It's one thing to refuse service to somebody based upon their race, religion, ethnicity, etc.; none of which have moral implications...

It's an entirely different matter to refuse service to somebody whom you believe is regularly engaged in evil and unclean and ungodly behaviors; a state of affairs which DOES have moral implications...

It's an apples-and-apples comparison at-law... as that body of law is currently being spun... but that can be changed in a heartbeat... with the right ruling, at the right level...

But it's an apples-and-oranges comparison on the religious-moral front...

And something is going to have to be done about this forcible imposition upon business-folk of goodwill and faith, who have not become dissolute in this modern hedonistic age, and who have kept faith with the morals and teachings of their fathers, whose belief-system steers them irreversibly down such a path... generation after generation...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Damn, this is confusing.
Why don't we just go back to where the law is only white people can marry others of the opposite sex and their cousins?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That gay couple could have just sucked it up, instead of getting that bakery put out of business. I'm sure there were plenty of other bakeries that would have been happy to serve them. Such arrogance!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Here's an idea...
> 
> The Bakers, and every single soul serving-up product and services to the public, and who object to being forced to provide services to those whom they belief practice aberration and uncleanness in the eyes of the Lord, should find a way, philosophically, to provide such product and services, so as to remain in compliance with laws that force them into that mode...
> 
> ...



Mind your own business. I do not need you to tell me what is moral, Godly, evil or not.
I am a religious person of faith that disagrees with you.
Stop pushing your religious beliefs on others. We respect them but do not want them in the law.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



While no one SHOULD have to hide their business.  That's in a free country, which we no longer have.  The anti Christian reality is what we have and adjustments will have to be made.  We COULD fix this and stop applying politically correct nonsense but that isn't happening.   Religious freedom might be restored one day, but today is not that day.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Look again.  I suggested nothing of the sort.  (I still think it is something in the water the liberals drink that makes them read things and see things that aren't there resulting in such straw man and non sequitur arguments.)

Existing marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody.  They did not discriminate based on race, creed, ethncitiy, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation.  Every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws.

Those states that have changed their laws to accommodate same sex marriage had to change the definition of marriage in order to do that, something other states have chosen not to do.

Court rulings ending true discrimination such as interracial marriage are an entirely different thing.  When a law violates somebody's unalienable rights, that is when the court should speak.  Marriage laws did not do that and the courts all should say so and advise the legislatures to change the law if they want to include same sex marriages.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 5, 2013)

Individual said:


> Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> Essentially the government is allowing persons who have different, and perhaps higher moral standards, to be discriminated against and even threatened physically.
> The practical solution to the disagreement should have been for the couple to seek the services desired from another bakery in the competitive marketplace.
> The Kleins, in my opinion, have legal grounds to seek and receive damages as a result of the actions taken against them in exercising their 1st Amendment right.



And who should be the defendant in the lawsuit?  The couple who the vendor refused service to?  The customers who gave up on the bakery when the controversy arose?  Maybe it should be a class action naming all of the assholes who exercised their 1st amendment rights and sent disparaging mail?

Hope they can afford to pay the lawyer themselves or they get it pro-bono, 'cause this is going to be pretty thin if on contingency.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



But don't you see?  If the Christians just roll over and play dead, we return to the days of the catacombs during the worst persecution in the Roman Empire.  The minorities, the gays, the Atheists, women militant on women's issues, etc. etc. etc. are all demanding the laws and civil protocol accommodate them.  We Christians should be just as vocal and demand our rights too.  I am getting sick and tired of being one of the last two demographics that it is acceptable to discriminate against and beat up on in this country.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They weren't persecuted.

They committed the first mortal sin of business: Pissing off the market they serve.

They had every right to refuse service but now they have to live with the consequences.

If they're looking for sympathy from me they can look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



If the consequences are that people just choose to go elsewhere, so be it.  If the consequences are that some choose to destroy their business, issue threats against their customers, their families, their suppliers etc. - that is evil.  Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an idea...
> ...



Ahhhh, but, metaphorically speaking, I *AM* minding my own business, in playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of the Bakers, with an eye towards preserving or restoring their rights, and the prerogatives and rights of a great many others just like them, who might eventually fall prey to such a state of affairs.



> ".._.I do not need you to tell me what is moral, Godly, evil or no_t..."



Agreed.

Completely.

I will not tell you what is moral, Godly, evil or not.

But please respect my right to decide for myself what is moral and Godly and evil or not, and do not impose your perspective upon me, either.

And, of course, you are doing just that - imposing your viewpoint upon me - when you force me to serve and associate with people whom I believe engage in unclean behaviors.

If you wish to serve them and to bake a cake, that's fine; I'm all good with that; go for it; it's none of my business; I really don't care.

But don't hypocritically force ME to bake them a cake, when I have valid moral objections.

Goose and gander and all that.



> "..._I am a religious person of faith that disagrees with you_..."



And I respect that, as I respect you as a colleague.

Sometime last night, in this very thread, I, for one, acknowledged a wide range of opinion and values and judgments about this topic, within each of the mainstream religions.

There is plenty of room for disagreement, so long as one side does not have the upper hand, with an ability to shove its viewpoint down the throats of the Opposition, as appears to be happening in the case of the Bakers.



> "..._Stop pushing your religious beliefs on others_..."



If the Bakers had been evangelizing in active opposition against homosexuality, and had used their business as a vehicle and stepping stone for that purpose, I might even be inclined to agree with you.

However, we are talking about folks who believe in their hearts and spirit that homosexuality is evil and that to associate with such folks is an immoral or unclean thing to do.

You (we, the Nation, through our laws) are pushing our SECULAR beliefs upon the Bakers, in direct contravention to centuries - milennia - of secular and canon law and philosophy which holds such practices to be morally reprehensible and injurious to the state and its people and its moral fiber.



> "..._We respect them but do not want them in the law._"



It is my perception that you *DIS*respect them (those beliefs) when you attempt to silence those who would interject them as a salient point in related conversations.

As to wanting them in the law or not wanting them in the law... well... frankly... I see what is unfolding around us now, as the opening shots in a very long, protracted, multi-generational struggle between those willing to 'normalize' such behaviors and those who find them Libertine and dissipated and injurious to the state and its citizenry.

I'm guessing that if we could time-warp ahead 50 years, we would find our Older Selves or our descendants still arguing like hell over this one.

But I don't claim any particular future sight nor do I possess a crystal ball.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Existing marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody.  They did not discriminate based on race, creed, ethncitiy, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation.  Every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws.



You appear to be a person of reason on most topics.

However, please recognize that your statement here is a circular argument.

You are attempting to prove "marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody" because "every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws."  

Your supposition, thus, is that laws discriminating against a particular group, in this case gays, are ok because everyone is treated the same.  Your supposition is that it's ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation, because they don't have to have a sexual orientation that the law discriminates against.   

Your argument attempts, poorly, to defend discrimination as long as everyone is discriminated against in the same way.  But the law did not ban all marriages irregardless of sexual orientation did it?  Nope.  It discriminated only against gay couples, because the majority believed at some point in time that discriminating against gay couples was good for society.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Oh I see all right.  The persecution of Christians in the United States is no different from that of the Roman Empire or in Islamic countries today.  Persecution has the force of law.  Be vocal, demand religious rights, and stop offering services to gays.   Offer them privately, to those who respect religious rights.

After the successful defense in my discrimination case, a photographer in my art group changed.  He stopped photographing weddings.  He stopped advertising as a wedding photographer.  He became a pet and child photographer, but if you knew him or knew someone who knew him, there was nothing preventing him from being a wedding photographer.   

Here is a random photographer.  I just picked one out of many on the internet.

Synek Photography

Do you think this photographer wouldn't photograph a friend's wedding?

Here's a random bakery.  Same thing, just pulled it up off the internet.   Do you see wedding cakes?

Cupcakes Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Los Angeles - Sugar Babies Cupcakery

If you knew this baker personally is there anything preventing them from baking a wedding cake?   If someone off the street walked in and asked for a wedding cake could they say this was not a service they offered?

From the number of businesses now putting limits on their services, it is likely already happening.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

Ummmm,,,how many christians were executed in the Forum last night?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



I disagree.

The world is changing, social attitudes are changing, markets are changing.

as a business you adapt or die.

They did not adapt.

And I have yet to have explained in any reasonable terms how baking a cake for someone is against anyone's religious convictions.

If a gay couple wanted a birthday cake for their adopted kid would they have been refused by this bakery?

If a gay couple came in holding hands to buy a cupcake would they have been refused?

If this was about marriage then don't Christian churches refuse to recognize civil marriage?

If two atheists came in and wanted a wedding cake would they have been refused because they weren't really getting married and were going to be living in sin?

This was about bigotry and nothing more and quite frankly I don't care if bigots suffer because of their bigotry.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



They purposefully screwed their customers.  Society does not OWE YOU A JOB.  Screw your customers and you most certainly deserve to loose your customers.  You don't have a right to FORCE me to buy your goods and services.  You may choose who you want to serve and I may choose who I want to buy from.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

of course today's christians do not even live by the Bible, so,,,,


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> "..._*Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share.*_"


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> "...They purposefully screwed their customers..."



No, they didn't screw-over their customer base.

They merely refused service to one customer, on moral or religious grounds.

And the vicious little pricks made a Cecil B. DeMille production out of it, and rode the present crest of pro-Gay legislation and rulings, and fucked them over good and proper, for holding to their religious beliefs.

Refusing service to one prospect on traditional religious grounds is hardly 'screwing their customers'.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > "..._*Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share.*_"



Then why are businesses being run out of town because good christians don't like them, ie; strip clubs, adult book stores, head shops,, to name a few. The God damned christians have been fucking businesses over that they don't like so all I can say is, paybacks a bitch.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Well, if you believe it is okay to intentionally and with malice of forethought destroy somebody's business because they hold a view you don't share, I think you might be part of the problem here.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > "...They purposefully screwed their customers..."
> ...



Taking a moral stand solely on gay marriage and not refusing all gay people is hypocritical at best.

As I asked before would these people have refused a gay couple for simply buying a cupcake or a birthday cake for their artificially conceived child?

Surely all of the above are contradictory to their religious beliefs.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > "...They purposefully screwed their customers..."
> ...



Let's say you are "black" for a moment.

You walk into a bar and ask for a drink.  The guy behind the bar says no we don't serve "n__s."  

Do you A) leave like a good little "n___r" or B) refuse to leave till you are served and get your face in the papers when the cops come by to beat you and pull you out or C) use social media to let everyone know this racist does not serve blacks?

Social media has replaced news papers as the means for enacting social change, get over it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Boycotting bigots should not be attached to the language used for first degree murder.

As I said if these bigots were consistent in their refusals to serve anyone who they believed lived a life that they felt was against their religious beliefs I might have more sympathy for them.

But that is obviously not the case here now is it?

They were happy to take other peoples money who were living in sin according to their religion weren't they?

Hypocritical bigots are even worse than run of the mill bigots.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Christians have been doing it for many decades.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Baking a cake violates no one's religious beliefs.  This very couple had special event cakes made for them by this very same bakery.  No one is suggesting that the bakery denied service to this gay couple.  They were regulars at this bakery.   When it came to a wedding cake the parameters are changed.   A wedding cake is not picked up at the bakery.  The baker has to go to the venue and construct the tiered cake.  Like the photographer who did not want to attend the same sex wedding, a baker is required to attend a same sex wedding in violation of their religious beliefs.    Foxfyre had a good idea.  Bake the cake and tell the couple that they are on their own in the presentation at the wedding.   And they had to provide their own same sex topper too.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> "..._Then why are businesses being run out of town because good christians don't like them, ie; strip clubs, adult book stores, head shops,, to name a few_..."


Because strip clubs, adult book stores, head shops, etc., are all part of the same dissipated, dissolute, libertine society-wide sickness, and are purposefully kept in the shadows and away from children and schools and such for a good reason.

Now, if you had said that, nationwide or society-wide, Christians (or other religious folk) were purposefully running non-strip dance clubs and regular book stores and non-drug -related accessories shops out of town, well, you'd have a lot more support for the argument.



> "..._The God damned christians have been fucking businesses over that they don't like_..."



Don't look now, but an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens are either (1) practicing Christians or (2) members of Christian-sympathetic families or (3) descendants of long multi-generational lines of Christians; our entire society is based, two or three steps removed, from European common law and precedent, which, in turn, is based upon European canon law and the morality and philosophy developed and maintained by our ancestors. You live in a Secular Christian country, and you, too, are part of that heritage.

Christians, and other religious folk, are merely the ones most likely to raise objections to some scumbag or another trying to open-up a strip club or adult book store or head-shop in proximity to decent folk and their families; somebody's got to do it, and they fulfill their role as volunteer watchdogs and warning klaxons quite admirably, in countering the worst that the more dissipated and dissolute and libertine amongst us are capable of attempting.



> "..._so all I can say is, paybacks a bitch._"



Throwing bricks at the Watchdog because he barked at someone whom we did not want him to bark at, makes very little sense.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Actually you did.  Read your own post above, YOU are the one that stated that courts should not be involved in matters at that level - that is should solely be under the purview of the legislature.



Foxfyre said:


> Existing marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody.  They did not discriminate based on race, creed, ethncitiy, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation.  Every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws.



You realize that the structure of that argument is the exact same one that the Commonwealth of Virginia used in the Loving case (i.e. that no one was being discriminated against because the law applied equally to coloreds and whites).  It wasn't accepted as logical then either.

You left out in your list though "gender", and yes the law discriminates based on the gender composition of the couple.



Foxfyre said:


> Those states that have changed their laws to accommodate same sex marriage had to change the definition of marriage in order to do that, something other states have chosen not to do.



True



Foxfyre said:


> Court rulings ending true discrimination such as interracial marriage are an entirely different thing.  When a law violates somebody's unalienable rights, that is when the court should speak.  Marriage laws did not do that and the courts all should say so and advise the legislatures to change the law if they want to include same sex marriages.



Actually marriage laws discriminating based on gender - are discriminatory.

There is no real difference in discriminating based on one biological factor (gender) as compared to another biological factor (race).


***********************************************

BTW - I'm not a "Liberal", I've been a registered Republican since 1978.  The difference is I can honestly recognize discrimination for no compelling government reason and call it what it is instead of stretching to try to justify discrimination by the government.


>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



When no one is there and before the event happens.  My aunt used to bake cakes for people and when she set up a wedding cake in the reception area it was hours before the event and she did not have to attend the ceremony or the reception..

Did this baker refuse to bake cakes for those getting a civil ceremony not sanctioned by their church?  After all they would be living in sin too.

Or was it only gay people who would be living in sin?

They took an arbitrary stand on the gay wedding cake and now they are paying the price.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You are correct.

That would, indeed, be hypocritical.

Is that what happened here?

Or is it that the Bakers refused service to Gays, period, on such grounds, which would be more consistent?

Did that every come up, while they were still in business?

If 'yes', then I may have missed something.

Then again, hypocrisy, in itself, is not a barrier to acting in such-and-so a fashion, if it can be counterpointed by such factors as (1) not knowing the orientation of the people being served, (2) being so busy in the shop that orientation never came-up on their scope, (3) or they simply changed their minds and viewpoint, upon further reflection on the moral implications.

Hypocrisy, while unattractive under most circumstances, is not necessarily a barrier to defensible actions.

And people are allowed to change their minds, as the grow and mature and reflect further upon the world around them...


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



And what gives you the moral superiority to judge these people in what they are and are not to consider sin?  Should I be able to destroy your livelihood or your business because I don't like the words you use or the beliefs you hold?   Again, if they refused to serve people who come to their place of business, that is unacceptable discrimination.  To refuse to be part of something that they could not condone at another location is something else quite again.   

Had they refused to deliver a cake to the Westboro Baptist Church or a KKK convention or a cock fight or Rush Limbaugh's birthday party, there wouldn't have been a murmer of protest from anybody.

As Katz pointed out they didn't refuse service to the couple.  They just didn't want to attend a gay wedding at another location.  That should be their right as much as it should be any of our right to not be forced to go to something we can't condone.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> "..._Baking a cake violates no one's religious beliefs..._"


No, but, perhaps, serving 'sinful folk' or associating with 'sinful folk' would; as one must do in the process of creating that cake.

And, with respect to precedent and service history...

Is it not possible that the Bakers simply had a change-of-mind or change-of-heart, or had achieved some (for them) new enlightenment on the subject, that caused them to depart from their former treatment of Gay customers?

People's beliefs and perceptions are dynamic; they evolve; they change.

People are allowed to change their minds.

And, when that change-of-mind results in a different moral perspective; one that echoes traditional secular and canonical thinking on the subject...

Such changes also serve to change the way folks (including business-folk) interact with the world...

I'm not saying that this was, indeed, the case here, but that sounds like a very logical and believeable rationale for the change-of-service parameters...

Perhaps I need to do some supplemental reading on the case...


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



No one refused service to gays.  The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple.   The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past.   They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



If it was a person of a religion other than Christianity--say Jewish or Muslim or whatever--who explained to a customer that they would bake them a cake to take with them, but their religion forbade them to enter a . . . . .or attend a. . . .or whatever, would there be the same degree of outrage?


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



Gosh, some feelings were hurt?  

You know, every time there is a topic about gay marriage, some creep comes along and equates being gay to being a pedophile.  Where are the objections then?  Where is Glenn Beck's moral outrage then?  When has Glenn Beck's rag (The Blaze) ever spoken out against these incredibly offensive, widespread abuses?


The closing of the bakery is a libertarian victory. After all, libertarians always claim there is no need for civil rights laws as people will avoid discriminatory establishments and they will go out of business.  And that is EXACTLY what has just happened.

Yet, in another topic today, a USMB forum member said he would watch with glee if someone beat a fag to death over this bakery incident.

And that is why we need civil liberties laws.  Because beneath the skin of every bigot lies a violent asshole wanting vengeance for a community exercising its free speech and free market choices, and Glenn Beck and his piss outlet are stoking them.

So the gays and their community fought back against bigots and centuries of discrimination and oppression, and _THAT_ is what pisses you off?

Interesting.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> "..._No one refused service to gays.  The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple.  The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past.   They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them._"



Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

They should have that right...

They should not be able to refuse product or services based on race, religion, and all of that - none of which have legitimate moral implications...

But they should be able to refuse product or services when doing so DOES have legitimate moral implications...

Now, it's merely a matter of defining what is 'legitimate'...

THAT is the crux of the argument, methinks...


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > "..._No one refused service to gays.  The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple.  The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past.   They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them._"
> ...



And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible, and the business went under.

God bless America!

Now a bakery that serves ALL the needs of the community can open.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 5, 2013)

What is forgotten by the whiners is that the store closed because of ENOUGH public opinion to boycott them.  One person or one couple boycotting isn't going to close anything.   But public opinion was enough to make them lose business.  Are the whiners suggesting that people should have been FORCED to buy from that business even if they did not want to?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



That's not what happened.   The gay mafia engaged in a hate campaign against the bakery and its customers.  That's what happened.  They were intimidated out of business.  Their customers were intimidated from buying from them.

They will take a break and open up someplace else under a new name, but better educated on how to avoid anti Christian bigots.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...





That's quite a fantasy you manufactured to comfort yourself.

Now a new bakery that serves ALL the needs of the community can open.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > "..._No one refused service to gays.  The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple.  The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past.   They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them._"
> ...



No, that is not what he said.

They were perfectly willing to bake a cake for the gay couple.  They were not willing to be present at an event they could not morally condone.  A large wedding cake is generally assembled at the location of the reception.

Should a place of business be REQUIRED to provide services at a customer location regardless of what or where that location is?

Again, should the baker be punished and destroyed, as he was, if he had refused to deliver and assemble a cake at:

The Westboro Baptist Church?
A KKK convention?
A dog fight or cock fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

Perhaps everybody should include in their advertising:
While we do try to accommodate our customers, we cannot agree to deliver some orders.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Bigots just hate it when fags won't lie down and take their beating.  They hate it when the fags fight back.  How dare they!


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



If a bakery refused to bake a Klan Kake, the community would support them.


Unless it was Alabama...


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Had the community done that, I would have no quibble.  But the 'community' rather picketed, threated the proprietors and their friends and family, threatened and coerced their suppliers, and intentionally and with willful malice of forethought destroyed this business.

And you're okay with that?  If somebody holds convictions or views you don't support, it's okay to financially destroy them?   Is it okay if we do that to you?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Ahhhhhhhh... right... this was merely a matter of not DELIVERING the product... even better.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



It's called free speech.  It's called a boycott.  You can try to twist it to more than that all you want, but that's what it was.

And it worked.

Exactly the way libertarians envisioned such things should work.

And don't pretend gays have not been threatened FOR REAL for longer than you have been alive or that you came running to their defense.  The hypocrisy is ripe in this topic.

They fought back, and won.  That's what's _really _pissing you off.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



It was a matter of them explaining to the gay couple that they could not be present at the wedding, so doing a large wedding cake that would have to be assembled at the wedding location was something they could not do.  Had the gay couple asked them to bake the cake and the gay couple would arrange to have it assembled, I'm pretty sure the Christian baker would have been more than happy to do that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



That gays have been threatened has nothing to do with this.  This couple that was ruined threatened nobody.  And they treated the gay couple like any other people when they came to their store in the past.  And if you are too bigoted to see that this was much much more than a boycott--this was a deliberate effort to financially ruin the baker--and you're okay with that, you are a far bigger bigot than they could ever be.

Again, I don't like your attitude about this.  Is it okay with you if I financially ruin you because you are bigoted against Christians?


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The gays fought back, and won.  That is what is actually pissing you off.  They didn't accept being discriminated against, and that bothers you.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

How many people that are now complaining about refusing to bake this cake supported the bakery who refused to bake a birthday cake saying "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler".  

Stupid Idiots Name Son Adolph Hitler, Bakery Refuses To Make Birthday Cake For The Young Terrorist. Sadly, It Gets Even Worse | Geekologie

Shouldn't that bakery be run out of business for refusing to bake a birthday cake for a child?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

As near as I can tell, nobodody "forced" them to close their shop. They chose to do so, so that they can cry to the press about how mean everyone is to them...after they published a hate filled rant on Facebook which would have been enough to drive any customer away.


----------



## eagle7_31 (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...





'Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couples children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.

And yet another wrote: Heres hoping you go out of business, you bigot.

The couple said on top of that, their vendors were badgered and harassed into stopping all associations with the bakery.'



I'm sure the above threats the bakery got don't bother you either.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Waaaah!  The gayz wouldn't take being discriminated against!  They would not lie down.  Boo hoo!

They fought back.  Not fair!


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

eagle7_31 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Would you please link to the Blaze article about all the _actual _threats gays regularly receive?  I'm not talking about bad wishes of ill will.  I am talking about the actual threats gays receive.  I can't seem to find any Blaze articles about that.

Thanks.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



I'm not pissed off at all.  But you absolutely will not answer the question.

Is it okay to intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody because they refused to provide services at:

A KKK convention?
The Westboro Baptist Church?
A cock fight or dog fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

. . . or go after g5000 and destroy his livelihood because he holds views I don't condone and consider bigoted?

I double dog dare you to answer that question.   And then explain to draw the guidelines for when it is okay to deliberately and intentionally destroy a person's livelihood and when it is not.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Every topic.  Every single gay marriage topic, bigots flood in and compare being gay to incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and all manner of harmful and evil practices.

So don't give me this pathetic Blaze propaganda about gays behaving badly.

They are fighting back.  Fire with fire.  You earned it, assholes.   Reap what you have sown.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The whole point of this little exercise is to force Christians to participate in same sex weddings.  Just to get them used to the idea and see that there's nothing to be afraid of.   The photographer offered to take any photos the same sex couple wanted, as many studio shots as they wanted, but would not attend the wedding.   She got sued too.   She lost, but the judge was very clear about what the rules were and every Christian should follow them.

If it were me forced to attend a same sex wedding, I would do it, and I would make it a special point of absolutely destroying any pleasant memory the couple had.   Of course, they could always tell me to leave, but they could not say I refused to perform the service.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> "..._It was a matter of them explaining to the gay couple that they could not be present at the wedding, so doing a large wedding cake that would have to be assembled at the wedding location was something they could not do. Had the gay couple asked them to bake the cake and the gay couple would arrange to have it assembled, I'm pretty sure the Christian baker would have been more than happy to do that._"



Exactly so.

You've nailed it.

And the vicious little phukkers who drove these good, decent folk out of business were wrong to do so.

They may very well have been within their rights.

But they were wrong.

That goes double for the part of that crowd who wished that the Klein's children would fall ill, and who wished that Mr. Klein would be attacked and raped.

Vicious little phukkers.

There will come a time, in the not too distant future, when the temporary and anomalous ascendancy of this _Tyranny of a Tiny Minority_ will be set aside...

Society at large has a tendency to level things out and to find a middle ground and to overturn the more radical aspects of idiotic social engineering...

It's merely a matter of how many good and decent normal folk will suffer before things get totally out of hand and an inevitable and righteous reaction manifests itself...

This too, shall pass...


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> There will come a time, in the not too distant future, when the temporary and anomalous ascendancy of this Tyranny of a Tiny Minority will be set aside...



Got your Cross all ready for burning, do you?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Existing marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody.  They did not discriminate based on race, creed, ethncitiy, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation.  Every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws.
> ...



I double dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Normalizing homosexual sex always passes.  It always has.  This isn't the first time in human history that homosexuals have demanded and gotten the right to have their perversion declared normal.   It just doesn't last long and it is never passed on as being beneficial.  It is destroyed with the expected slaughter of homosexuals in the process.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'll answer your question. Chick-Fil-A will never see a dime of my money, and if they go out of business as a result of that, I would not give a rat's ass.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

It's the Libertarian dream.  A business that did not meet all the needs of the community went under, without the law forcing them to do something they did not want to do.

Libertarians should be popping champagne.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

NOTICE:   Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



I have no problem with that.  But should you be able to threaten the folks at Chick-fil-a?  Threaten their customers?  Threaten their suppliers?   Intentionally and willingfully destroy them?  Answer that please.  If the baker had refused to deliver to the organizations I listed, would you think it just and right to threaten and coerce and willfully destroy the business because of that?


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> NOTICE:   Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.



I will gladly answer this.

If the community does not feel a business meets its needs, they should be able to exercise their right to not patronize that business, and to use their free speech to rally a community boycott.

If a business refused to serve Christians or Jews, and the community did not like that, they could stop using that business.

Easy peasey!


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > There will come a time, in the not too distant future, when the temporary and anomalous ascendancy of this Tyranny of a Tiny Minority will be set aside...
> ...








"*All hands... stand by to repel Drama Queens, starboard...*"


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I have no problem with that.  But should you be able to threaten the folks at Chick-fil-a?  Threaten their customers?  Threaten their suppliers?   Intentionally and willingfully destroy them?  Answer that please.  If the baker had refused to deliver to the organizations I listed, would you think it just and right to do anything to destroy the business because of that?



"I hope you die" is not a threat.  "I am going to kill you" is.  Learn the difference.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> NOTICE:   Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.



By using the words, "forced out of business", you mean that they lost their customers, well, gee Fox, the same thing is happening to J.C. Penny....and to me when I owned a coffee shop in a mall that lost 2 of their three anchor stores.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



You poor fool.  You don't even know your ship has already sailed.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > NOTICE:   Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.
> ...



You won't answer the question will you.

And "forced out of business" means threatening the owners and employees of the business, threatening their customers, threatening their suppliers.  Willfully and intentionally destroying the livelihood of people purely because they hold a point of view you don't accept.

And those of you who think that is just fine are far more dangerous, even evil,  bigots than any Christian baker will ever be.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

I have not seen a credible source of any "threats" to the owners of this store. If they were threatened, which I am not buying without a source, then that is a crime.I don't see how I can give you a more precise answer than that.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"I hope you die" is not a threat, no matter how deeply you swallow Glenn Beck's tool.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 won't answer the question.
g5000 won't answer the question.
g5000 won't answer the question.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> g5000 won't answer the question.
> g5000 won't answer the question.
> g5000 won't answer the question.



Are you in the third grade?

I did answer your question, child.  Go back and look.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> NOTICE:   Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.




I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws in general, both at the State and Federal level because they encroach on the property rights of private individuals acting in a private capacity.  Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities in (a) how they conduct their operations, and (b) the ability of those entities to contract or securer goods and services from business who have a demonstrated history of discrimination.

The market should determine whether a business survives or tanks.

There should be no "special privileges" for those based on "religious grounds", ALL Public Accommodation laws (whether based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, parental status, veterans status, ethnicity, country of origin, etc.) should be repealed.  With modern communications information is much more readily available to the populous through news, radio, email, social networks, the internet, and various review sites like Yelp and Angie's List etc.  If a business conducts their business in a discriminatory way, then it is up to the customers to decide to avail themselves of the business or not.


That good enough?


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




No, "forced out of business" means that expenses exceeded revenues.

Personal threats of violence are illegal and should have been reported to the police for criminal prosecution.

Telling a business "I won't buy from you" is a boycott.  Telling business that refer customers to another business "I won't buy from you" as long as you support the other business is a boycott.  Boycotts are an accepted and promoted practice for those that find companies that treat homosexuals equally.


>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I am not taking a moral stance here.  never was.  The term bigot is defined



> a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance



The simple fact is they pissed off a large enough segment of their market and their community with their bigotry so as to lose good will in the end that's all a business has.



> Should I be able to destroy your livelihood or your business because I don't like the words you use or the beliefs you hold?   Again, if they refused to serve people who come to their place of business, that is unacceptable discrimination.  To refuse to be part of something that they could not condone at another location is something else quite again.



It had nothing to do with their beliefs and everything to do with their bigotry. As I said they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was make a cake and set it up in a reception hall.  Hell they could have said that the couple needed to buy and place their own topper on the cake to avoid the gay sin.

But they chose to take a stand for whatever reason and I don't believe it was moral stance because as I said I'm sure they made and delivered cakes for people who weren't married in church sanctioned ceremonies and therefore were also committing a sin.





> Had they refused to deliver a cake to the Westboro Baptist Church or a KKK convention or a cock fight or Rush Limbaugh's birthday party, there wouldn't have been a murmer of protest from anybody.



Comparing those groups to the homosexual community is a bit of a stretch.



> As Katz pointed out they didn't refuse service to the couple.  They just didn't want to attend a gay wedding at another location.  That should be their right as much as it should be any of our right to not be forced to go to something we can't condone.



And as I pointed out they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was set the cake up in the reception hall and leave.  Maybe they didn't want to take the chance of stepping foot in a place where gay people might be.  Second hand sin is deadly too.

The baker does not usually attend the wedding ceremony or the reception. No baker I have ever known did and I never saw the cake maker at any wedding I ever attended unless of course that baker was on the guest list.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



So being gay performing gay sex acts living together in sin is all OK with them and they have no problem taking money from those people.

like I said bigots and hypocrites.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > NOTICE:   Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.
> ...


I can't wait to be able to eat where there is no wet backs.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You have never seen a large wedding cake assembled have you.  It isn't done at the bakery.  It is done at the reception.  The baker had no problem baking a cake.  But it was his moral conviction that it would be a sin for him to attend even the preparations for the reception.

That may sound stupid and unreasonable to you.  But there is no law against convictions that make no sense to us no matter who holds them.

Will you answer my question whether the baker should be required to deliver a cake to:

The Westboro Baptist church?
A KKK convention?
A cock fight or dog fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

Or would there be the same degree of outrage if he refused to deliver a cake to those places based on moral convictions?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 5, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> > Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.
> ...



That is exactly what I meant by drawing a bulls eye on the perceived politically incorrect. Label them, then attack them because they don't believe what you believe.  
Is there anyone else you insist the owners of their own business serve?  KKK?  Black Panthers?  Politicians?  Maybe you should make a list for them so they'll know how you want them to run their affairs?

We are drawing a chalk outline around freedom.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




The Westboro Baptist church - If the reason given was that WBC was a Christian organization.  Yes, they would be in violation of the law.

A KKK convention - If the reason stated was that the KKK members where white, Yes that would be a violation of the law.  If the reason stated was that the KKK is a political organization the member does not support, then NO that is not a violation of the law as political entities are not covered.

A cock fight or dog fight - It would not be a violation of the law as cock fighting and dog fighting are illegal activities.

Rush Limbaugh's birthday party - If the reason stated was that the Rush Limbaugh is white, Yes that would be a violation of the law.  If the reason stated was that the Rush Limbaugh is a political commentator, then NO that is not a violation of the law as political entities are not covered.



Hope that helps.


>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

If I was the baker, I would have delivered the wedding cake.  I have attended gay weddings.  I have employed gay people and worked with gay people and have a best friend who is quite gay.  The gay couple who live next door are some of our favorite neighbors.

But I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.

God help us if this becomes the norm in America.  We will be no different than militant Islam or the Inquisition who punished heretics in terrible ways.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It's done BEFORE the reception starts.  The cake is always there when the guests arrive. As I said my aunt used to bake wedding cakes for people all the time and i used to help her deliver them and set them up we never once were in the reception hall after the party started.

So the "I don't want to attend the gay wedding or reception " excuse just doesn't cut it.



> The baker had no problem baking a cake.  But it was his moral conviction that it would be a sin for him to attend even the preparations for the reception.



Yeah the gay sin might rub off if he steps in the same building.



> That may sound stupid and unreasonable to you.  But there is no law against convictions that make no sense to us no matter who holds them.



I never said there should be a law in fact if you bothered to read my posts I said that any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone as far as I'm concerned.  But then they can't whine about the consequences if their actions piss off enough people.



> Will you answer my question whether the baker should be required to deliver a cake to:
> 
> The Westboro Baptist church?
> 
> ...



IBID.  If any of those groups had enough community support so as to lose the same amount of good will then that again is a consequence of decision not to serve them.



> Or would there be the same degree of outrage if he refused to deliver a cake to those places based on moral convictions?



IBID


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

There are so many ways the bakery could have resolved this to their own satisfaction had they just thought ahead.   Get the names of cake decorators willing to go to same sex weddings.  Jo-Anns teaches cake decorating, they probably have a number of them who know how to construct those tiers.   Tell the couple that the bakery is willing to bake the cake but will not provide the topper.  The work at the venue has to be done by an outside contractor, give them a list of names and tell them to make their own arrangements.  The cake can be picked up by either the decorator or the parties.

Now that individuals know what can happen to them for opposing the gay mafia, they should all be investigating what courses of action are still available for religious freedom.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.
> 
> God help us if this becomes the norm in America.  We will be no different than militant Islam or the Inquisition who punished heretics in terrible ways.



Too late.  IT IS the norm in America today.

These people weren't merely forced out of business by a customer boycott.   They were being investigated by state agencies.  In Colorado it's jail time for exercising religious rights.

http://www.examiner.com/article/col...ail-for-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding

What you're afraid of has already happened.    The next step is the jihadist burning of the Churches.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.
> 
> God help us if this becomes the norm in America.  We will be no different than militant Islam or the Inquisition who punished heretics in terrible ways.




You have an issue with a community deciding to use or not use a business after the public is made aware of their business practices?

Remember this business closed its retail shop because of no action of the government, they closed because of lost revenue once they discriminatory proactice was made public.

I'm for free market.  What is your solution?



(BTW - I'm not joyful about what are basically good people who made a business decision that the community did support were damaged, but choices have consequences.)

>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Euroconservativ said:
> ...



I don't know how many times I have to say this.

IMO any business has the right to refuse service for whatever reason.

But the caveat is they have to suffer the consequences if that refusal pisses off a large enough segment of the market or community.

I don't think the KKK is a large enough sector of the market and or the community that refusing them service would result in the same ends.

And seriously why didn't all the other gay fearing christians in the area flock to this bakery to support them?  Seems to me that they had a lot more gay customers than they thought.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.
> ...



   I think you might be right.   If so, this is no longer American, home of the free.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It'd be the same if they refused a black couple, a jewish couple, etc etc etc etc

And again I don't agree with the jail time thing for refusing service just the whining about the consequences of said refusal.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.
> ...



No, it's against the law to discriminate. Christians have been discriminating for centuries and it's about time they were stopped.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It's more free now than when the Christians had a stranglehold on society.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The Wildflower Inn in Vermont has a court order that it must never again have a wedding at their venue, gay or straight as a result of the actions of the gay mafia.  

Christians should impose their own limitations that allow for very private parties, BEFORE they get a court order.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



 [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] I triple dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 5, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> "..._(BTW - I'm not joyful about what are basically good people who made a business decision that the community did support were damaged, but choices have consequences.)_"


The "community", as in the Community-at-Large, or the Gay Community, which is a miniscule subset of the larger one, in the vast majority of locales which one might name?

If their 'Community' is like most communities, then, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of folks in that community had Clue One, as to what was going on at the time.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 5, 2013)

Certainly Christians have no problem when it is Christians doing mafia things.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > "..._(BTW - I'm not joyful about what are basically good people who made a business decision that the community did support were damaged, but choices have consequences.)_"
> ...



It doesn't matter. They pissed off enough people gay or not and I'm willing to bet some of the people that are refusing to give their business to the baker are straight and are acting on their beliefs so shouldn't the baker be supporting them as he wants to be supported for acting on his beliefs?

Face it attitudes are changing and fewer and fewer people will tolerate attitudes like the baker's.  I know I would not patronize that bakery if it were in my neighborhood because I don't like bigots.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 5, 2013)

I've never heard of a "christian baker"  Do they have a giant crucifix on their sign? Did they only cater to christians and was that in writing?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

We all know about the  dangers of 'lions, tigers, and bears, OH MY!", but now, we also have to worry about the "gay mafia"! I'm having a hard time visulizing this. Would this be a bunch of wise guys wearing back shirts and pink ties, packing pearl handled Derringers?


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



The rw, hyperbole queen (2nd maybe to Katzndogz) peeks her head out from the coffee shop to make a post


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.

The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc.  Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.

Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind.  But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents,  children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.  

Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.

Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states.  You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married.  You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc.  The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman who were not married to anybody else, who were at least a certain age, and who were not too closely related.   You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.

Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry?  Yes it did.  Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed.  That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.

Does that make me a bigot?  Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers?  Destroy me.  Wreck me financially?  All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?

If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.


----------



## Euroconservativ (Sep 5, 2013)

Bar owner fined $400,000:
Bar owner fined for banning transgender patrons | Local News | The Seattle Times

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com


But this lady was portrayed as a hero:
Martha Boggs, Tennessee Restaurant Owner Who Kicked Out Senator Stacey Campfield For Anti-Gay Remarks, Describes Encounter


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 5, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


good post


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> *The Wildflower Inn in Vermont has a court order that it must never again have a wedding at their venue, gay or straight as a result of the actions of the gay mafia.*
> 
> Christians should impose their own limitations that allow for very private parties, BEFORE they get a court order.




Not true.  The Wildflower in is under a binding settlement agreement that they voluntarily entered into, it's what the parties agreed to and was accepted by the court.

At any time in the future they can readdress the stipulation with the parties and the court and agree to hold weddings again on a non-discriminatory basis and they will be fine.


https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/fully_executed_settlement_agreement_8_23_12_0.pdf


>>>>


----------



## bodecea (Sep 5, 2013)

Euroconservativ said:


> Bar owner fined for banning transgender patrons | Local News | The Seattle Times
> 
> Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com
> 
> ...



If Tennessee has a law preventing her from refusing him service, then what she did is illegal.  But most restaurants have policies posted that they can refuse service to anyone.   And if this Senator has a following, they are welcome to call for a boycott of that restaurant.  Have at it.

This reminds me of all the Hooters in San Diego Co. refusing to serve Mayor Bob Filner.   Had no problem with that either.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



I respect all of that but you need to know that many of us were raised that Christians never have to go around telling anyone what our beliefs are and that we are Christian.
They will know it by our ACTIONS.
To walk with Christ is to be Christlike.
You never, ever have to say a word. 
Actions always speak louder with than words, with your pads on the football field and with how you treat everyone else as we walk with Christ.
No offense but I am very skeptical of anyone that goes around labeling homosexuals as evil and 2nd class citizens. You took it further than that.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Evil? Being a secular humanist, I don't believe in such things. You, OTOH, must be a part of the Repub "Base" I take it?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > "..._(BTW - I'm not joyful about what are basically good people who made a business decision that the community did support were damaged, but choices have consequences.)_"
> ...




Do you seriously think that the retail storefront for the business tanked because only gay people stopped buying baked goods there?  Seeing as how homosexuals number - what - 3 to 5% of the population you really think the store closed for a loss of revenue of 3-5%.



>>>>


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 5, 2013)

Put it on church property and have it be non-profit otherwise accommodate EVERYONE. That is the law, as was mentioned earlier by WorldWatcher I believe. You know the thing that Rand Paul- type libertarians hate?  public accomodation  .


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Put it on church property and have it be non-profit otherwise accommodate EVERYONE. That is the law, as was mentioned earlier by WorldWatcher I believe. You know the thing that Rand Paul- type libertarians hate?  public accomodation  .




Psst - I support the repeal of Pubic Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities.

Just say'n.



>>>>


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I respect all of that but you need to know that many of us were raised that Christians never have to go around telling anyone what our beliefs are and that we are Christian.
> They will know it by our ACTIONS.
> To walk with Christ is to be Christlike.
> You never, ever have to say a word.
> ...



agreed. Same goes w/ praying in secret. Those who go about shouting their beliefs from the rooftops and praying in public are only attention seekers AOT true believers.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Democrats/Liberals have been discriminating since the late 18th Century, it's about time they were stopped.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Put it on church property and have it be non-profit otherwise accommodate EVERYONE. That is the law, as was mentioned earlier by WorldWatcher I believe. You know the thing that Rand Paul- type libertarians hate?  public accomodation  .
> ...



Forget it, World. You can take my handicapped placard out of my cold, dead hands.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You must be part of the Secular Liberal Base, I gather?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

My ancestors came here in the 1650s and many ended up in the Hudson River valley in NY. One can Google Terhune, Minard or Walker and Clintondale NY Friends Church to see our history there.
We were persecuted for many years by other Christians when we arrived because of our beliefs that Jesus did not condemn those that follow him. Our path included freeing slaves while Washington and many of the Founders kept them. We ran underground RR up until the Civil War and suffered deaths at the hands of slave bounty hunters as far north as Maine. We fought against segregation in the South. In the 40s we included homosexuals in our cause and sought equal rights for them.
Why? Because Jesus told us to do those things and he never once labeled any of them any less of a person than any of us.
That is my walk and duty. I used to be the polar opposite of that, just the culture I was in for a long time, not what I was taught at home.
I changed almost 20 years ago and it feels so much better living this way!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Gee, and you call _us Christians_ bigots?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> Certainly Christians have no problem when it is Christians doing mafia things.



Or liberals when gays do gay mafia things, i.e. this Bakery for example.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Does that make me a bigot?  Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers?  Destroy me.  Wreck me financially?  All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?


>>> Does that make me a bigot?
bigot:  a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong. 

Yes, your opinion that it is ok to discriminate against gays makes you a bigot against gays.  You could argue that I'm a bigot for gays.  No, I'm not gay.  I'm a liberty loving constitutional conservative, married to my lovely wife for 27 years.

>>> Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers?  Destroy me.  Wreck me financially?

Picket, yes. I'm picketing you right now with my posts.  

Threaten you, your friends, and suppliers?  Is my post "threatening" in any way?

>>> Destroy me.  
You mean like the type of destruction and pain your support for laws against gay couples causes?

>>> Wreck me financially?
I don't have to buy from people who are bigots against blacks, gays, jews or any other groups if I don't want to.  I don't owe you a thing.  If your love of your pet bigotries are greater than desire for me to be a customer of your establishment then so be it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

The gay mafia will have a brand new challege after they force vendors tto participate in their weddings the will have to force acceptance by suing guests who refuse at participate in gay weddings.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> My ancestors came here in the 1650s and many ended up in the Hudson River valley in NY. One can Google Terhune, Minard or Walker and Clintondale NY Friends Church to see our history there.
> We were persecuted for many years by other Christians when we arrived because of our beliefs that Jesus did not condemn those that follow him. Our path included freeing slaves while Washington and many of the Founders kept them. We ran underground RR up until the Civil War and suffered deaths at the hands of slave bounty hunters as far north as Maine. We fought against segregation in the South. In the 40s we included homosexuals in our cause and sought equal rights for them.
> Why? Because Jesus told us to do those things and he never once labeled any of them any less of a person than any of us.
> That is my walk and duty. I used to be the polar opposite of that, just the culture I was in for a long time, not what I was taught at home.
> I changed almost 20 years ago and it feels so much better living this way!



Homosexuality is not some special practice that is exempt from God's righteous judgment simply because they claim they are "born that way," or "just want to be free to love," or say that "it is normal," Gadawg. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as sinful, and even as it stands, God still loves them, hoping for them to turn away from it. But that does not shield them from the consequences.

I wrote down a snippet of an article from a Christian Apologetics website which reads:

"Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her).  Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible.  It needs to be laid at the cross and forsaken. 

People are born with a tendency to lie.  Does that make it okay?  People want to love each other, but since when is "love" the determiner of what is right and wrong?  If homosexuality is normal, then why is it practiced by so few?  The great majority of people are heterosexual.  Are they "more" normal?

But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and the solution to the problem of sin (the breaking of God's Law, 1 John 3:4) is found only in Jesus.  He is the Lord, the Savior, the risen King. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and he died to save sinners.  We are all sinners and we need salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) that is found in receiving Christ (John 1:12-13).

We Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as we would for any other person trapped in any other sin.  This is not an issue of arrogance or judgmentalism. We don't want anyone to be lost due to their sin and that includes gays, lesbians, and transgenders.

The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he (or she) is in rebellion.  Therefore, we Christians should show homosexuals the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact.  Don't injure them.  Don't hate them.  Don't judge them.  Inform them that freedom and forgiveness are found in Jesus.  Let them know that God loves us and died for us so that we might be delivered from the consequences of our sin.

But, this does not mean that you are to approve of what they do.  *Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of rationality, godliness, and biblical truth.  Instead, stand firm in the word that God has revealed and patiently love him/her biblically, and pray for their salvation.  Be kind to them.  Be loving.  And, when appropriate, tell them the gospel.*"


----------



## Euroconservativ (Sep 5, 2013)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/portland-bar-transgender-discrimination-_n_3845452.html

Right now you are winning the game. After all, how can anyone oppose equality, happiness, etc? But people will realize this was not only about equal rights... but special rights. Special rights for another group oppresed by the evil "straight white male" (the trifecta of privilege, according to a MSNBC anchor). Eventually all these fines, mandates and suffocating political correctness will backfire.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 5, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...




Public Accommodation laws are different then ADA laws.



>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Does that make me a bigot?  Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers?  Destroy me.  Wreck me financially?  All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?
> ...



Okay.  I'll put you down as one who would have enjoyed the persecutions in the Roman Empire heyday, who completely supports militant Islanic fundamentalists in torturing, raping, stoning, and beheading heretics even now, and you would have eagerly participated in the Inquisition.

And otherwise you won't address the argument presented but rewrite it into something more politically correct.

But thanks for letting us know.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.



Not so much. There's maybe one vague reference to marriage being between a man and a woman in the new testament that has nothing to do with gays at all.  And the old testament just had one mention to my understanding.  The new testament is more than just an augmentation of the old testament.  Would you say slavery is not a sin because it's in the bible?  Just because there is one reference in the old test. to a Jewish law of antiquity, does not make being gay a sin.  Should we be sacrificing goats and stoning sinners in the streets?


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



keep that hyperbole train rolling Katzndogz..... errr.....FoxFyre


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

Boycotting a bakery="one who would have enjoyed the persecutions in the Roman Empire heyday, who completely supports militant Islanic fundamentalists in torturing, raping, stoning, and beheading heretics even now, and you would have eagerly participated in the Inquisition."

Yeah, it_ is _a slippery slope!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.
> ...



Sorry:


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Okay.  I'll put you down as one who would have enjoyed the persecutions in the Roman Empire heyday, who completely supports militant Islanic fundamentalists in torturing, raping, stoning, and beheading heretics even now, and you would have eagerly participated in the Inquisition.
> 
> And otherwise you won't address the argument presented but rewrite it into something more politically correct.
> 
> But thanks for letting us know.


Why did you have to go off the deep end and start making up lies?  How is supporting picketing the same as supporting torturing, raping, stoning, and beheading?  Please explain how not supporting violence is supporting violence.  Please explain how one American killing someone 12 thousand miles away from our mainland is the fault of every single American on the planet.

I can be against your bigoted views without killing you.  For example, I can point out that your views on gays are in fact, vile bigoted views.  See no rape or stone was required.  No one lost their head.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Okay.  I'll put you down as one who would have enjoyed the persecutions in the Roman Empire heyday, who completely supports militant Islanic fundamentalists in torturing, raping, stoning, and beheading heretics even now, and you would have eagerly participated in the Inquisition.
> ...



I wasn't talking about picketing.  You accused me of bigotry while sanctioning what I was talking against.  When you will address what I was talking against, I will return to the discussion.  Until then, my assessment of your position stands.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

RKM, slavery in the Bible and the slavery that went on during the Civil War are two different things. How incredibly dense can you be? In those days, it was something called "indentured servitude." A "slave" signed a contract for 7 years in exchange for room and board for hard labor. By no means is this anything remotely similar to your flawed preconceptions about slavery.

Your whole argument is based on a limited knowledge of my faith and the doctrines involved with my faith. We do not feel obligated to give in to the political correctness of this day and age, that Bakery should never have been "shamed" into shuttering its doors. You liberals have a lot of gall trying to impose such immoral things on people of faith, for the sake of your twisted senses of equality.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Leviticus is the ancient law in the old testament i mentioned, it's from the Torah no less. 

The verse in Corinthians is the vague reference in the new testament I mentioned. That reference was actually taking about whether to look for judgement from the Roman government or from the priests of the church.  He was admonishing them for using the roman court.  Then he lists a set of immoralities that they had done that were washed away by jesus...

The verse in Romans is again vague, talking about lustful sex acts.  I suppose this in violation of church sanctified marriage.

Note: These are not told from Jesus.  These are from people talking about jewish law and belief at the time.

There are a great many things in the bible that we have out grown.  Such as thinking it's ok to have slaves.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


----------



## bendog (Sep 5, 2013)

Homosexuality in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul's main ministry was among the hellenistic folks ... and later he went to Rome.  The Greek view of married, adult men taking teenage male lovers was contrary to his view of christian morality.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



They can speak about the tactics of the gay mafia.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Do you eat lobster or crab?

Lev. 11:10-11, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination."

How about pork.  Do you eat pork?  See Lev. 11:4.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKM, slavery in the Bible and the slavery that went on during the Civil War are two different things. How incredibly dense can you be? In those days, it was something called "indentured servitude." A "slave" signed a contract for 7 years in exchange for room and board for hard labor. By no means is this anything remotely similar to your flawed preconceptions about slavery.
> 
> Your whole argument is based on a limited knowledge of my faith and the doctrines involved with my faith. We do not feel obligated to give in to the political correctness of this day and age, that Bakery should never have been "shamed" into shuttering its doors. You liberals have a lot of gall trying to impose such immoral things on people of faith, for the sake of your twisted senses of equality.


How incredibly obtuse can you be? Slavery during the roman times, just as slavery in our civil war era, most certainly did comprise both indentured servitude and permanent slavery.  That you think slaves were all volunteers during Biblical times is laughable. 

I'm not a modern liberal.  And I may have "more" or "less" knowledge of your faith than you.  In particular, I'm a Methodist.  I've never claimed to speak for your faith.  Your accusation is ludicrous. 

That bakery was not forced to close, they closed because the customers eschewed them.  They chose to throw stones at the gays... in response the community at large who used to be their customers... walked away.  IMO the bakery owners should have followed the teachings of Jesus and put down their stones.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.

So...judge not, lest ye be judged.  You'll spend eternity in hell for pulling your pud, surrounded by homos.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

novasteve said:


> You have to like us or else
> /



The double standard is more like:
* It's WRONG to reject ALL gay people as "unnatural"
just because "SOME gay behavior" is related to abuse and not naturally born or chosen
* but it's OKAY to "reject ALL Christians as hypocrites"
just because SOME Christians are....


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

What have we learned.

We have learned eating pork or lobster is the same as being gay.

We have learned the free market has a way of weeding out businesses which do not serve the interests of the community. We have learned bigots are hypocrites when this principle works to their disadvantage.

We have learned that when a community fights back against haters, the haters are the biggest crybabies of all.  Which is exactly what my father taught me about bullies when I was a kid.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality.  If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings.   It's that simple.  If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.
> 
> So...judge not, lest ye be judged.  You'll spend eternity in hell for whacking your pud, surrounded by homos.



Don't forget: fornicators who will not enter into heaven,
and adulterers, who if even lusting in their hearts, commit the sin in spirit.

The real issue is whether people are "abusing relationships" or "abusing sex"
by lusting after each other if they are not committed mates, and either
hurt themselves, each other, or other people by not respecting committed relations.

that is the underlying issue,
regardless of race, age, gender or whatever else has been blamed

either those engaged in a sexual relationship or act are committed spiritual partners
to each other and not causing harm, or they are abusing either sex, the relationship or both

since ppl are afraid to generalize to that level, they will "pick" some cases to blame
more than others. protesting rape, child abuse, pedophilia, forced marriages, sex or kids outside of marriage, etc etc. All forms of either sex or relationship abuse. take your pick!


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes you were most certainly talking about picketing.  Do I have to go back and quote, again?  No i did not accuse you of bigotry while sanctioning what I was talking against.  I accused you of bigotry because of what you were sanctioning.  Two different and opposite things.

You are deflecting.  NO ONE is defending any violence that took place.  NO ONE.  You "made" that up.  Your accusations, thus, are made based on the assumption that someone, such as myself, is defending the violent acts that took place.  Such as breaking into their truck.  Why do you insist on focusing on the act of one person that broke into their truck?  What is your point?  Where do you want to go with that?  I can only surmise the intent is to deflect away from the bigotry being expressed by the bakery owners and yourself.   The single act by some jerk that broke into their truck one frigging time does not justify all bigotry against gays, now does it?  I thought you said the justification was the law against gays getting married.  Templar is saying the justification is a 2k year old verse in the bible.  

I mean really?  Are these the things you guys have to justify bigotry against gays?  One stupid act by one person against one bakery owner's truck and a vague reference to lust as immoral in the bible?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> What have we learned.
> 
> We have learned eating pork or lobster is the same as being gay.
> 
> ...



In those days, eating pork or lobster could easily be a death sentence so it isn't at all surprising that someone would pass a rule against it.

Eat this lobster, fall over dead.   Not that the region was overrun with lobsters.   They must have had some kind of shellfish that would cause someone who ate it to stop breathing.  How many people do you suppose ate shellfish and died?  Or ate pork and got trichinosis and died before someone said "Maybe this isn't something we should be doing".


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality.  If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings.   It's that simple.  If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.



The refused to make a cake.  This bullshit about delivering it is just that; bullshit.  It's made up.

This was not about attending a gay wedding.  I'm sure the fags would have been happy to pick up the cake and take it themselves.  

So just put that fantasy down.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > What have we learned.
> ...





You are so desperate!

You think beef wasn't dangerous back then?  You think only certain meats were susceptible?

You are an idiot.  Even today, chicken is the most dangerous meat of all.  One in three are poisoned, that's why you have to cook them well.  If your bogus premise was true, God would have banned chicken.  Chicken would have been at the top of the list.

So this idiotic meme you drank is really stupid.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> How incredibly obtuse can you be? Slavery during the roman times, just as slavery in our civil war era, most certainly did comprise both indentured servitude and permanent slavery.  That you think slaves were all volunteers during Biblical times is laughable.



Don't forget the slaves we have today.
And no, I don't mean people striking if they're not paid 15.00 for fast food jobs.
I mean ppl still working for cents per day. Or children/women forced into sex slavery.

People can protest either the bakery, or ChickFilA or Westboro or this or that.
But if consumers are still buying slave-made products, where are your priorities?

Having luxury to access all this, and with that free time and free speech,
WHAT are you protesting? Really?

================================================



RKMBrown said:


> That bakery was not forced to close, they closed because the customers eschewed them.  They chose to throw stones at the gays... in response the community at large who used to be their customers... walked away.  IMO the bakery owners should have followed the teachings of Jesus and put down their stones.



How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?

I think any stone throwing came afterwards, right?

If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?

The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views
where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?

I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
Am I the minority in the wrong here?


----------



## paperview (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.
> 
> So...judge not, lest ye be judged.  You'll spend eternity in hell for pulling your pud, surrounded by homos.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

CDC - General Information on Salmonella


> Every year, *approximately 42,000 cases of salmonellosis *are reported in the United States. Because many milder cases are not diagnosed or reported, the actual number of infections may be twenty-nine or more times greater.



Now let's see...how many cases of trichinellosis are reported each year?


CDC - Trichinellosis - General Information


> During 20082010,* 20 cases* were reported per year on average.


----------



## g5000 (Sep 5, 2013)

Many of the dietary and behavorial restrictions or requirements in the Bible were for the purpose of demonstrating one's fealty to the God of Israel.

They were a badge, an outward signal for which faith to which one belonged.

"Oh, those are the Israelities.  You can tell because of their wardrobe, and because they don't eat pork and don't smoke poles."


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality.  If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings.   It's that simple.  If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.



Hire a gay person to do their deliveries?


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

Dear FF: It just means you need a big enough PR budget to "turn the other cheek"
like ChickFilA did. And call people nationwide to support their business in the face of opposition. They even served free food to people protesting in the heat. Answered by "speaking the truth with love" and won more support than anything said in anger.



Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



And about marriage, whatever your opinions or beliefs are, as long as they differ from other people's beliefs or values they should be kept in private under religious or community organizations that represent you or them or whoever has differences.

that is just constitutional to keep beliefs separate and out from under the state.

the only part the state has any business in is contracts, for shared custody, estates, etc.
not for the personal relationship which is private. both sides are hypocrites for trying to force their beliefs through the state. they should be pulling the other way toward privitazation and make all sides happy, equally included under the same Constitution.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

paperview said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul condemns masturbators and gays in the same breath in the New Testament.
> ...



you both laugh.

but what if all the adulterers, who pointed fingers at others while sinning themselves,
ARE the ones being born homosexual, ostracized and bullied to death the same way?

is this tragic? or funny to you?
to look at the laws of causality or karma this way?


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality.  If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings.   It's that simple.  If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.
> ...



Now that's the right attitude!
The bakers should have DONATED the cake, so they didn't do business
but just gave charity to whom they considered SICK.

That would make the same statement, but with kindness.
Who would've protested the bakers giving cakes away as gifts to encourage
these people to receive whatever they felt might help those folks get right.

Then they would have to ask for MORE BUSINESS in order to support
this ministry of giving away cakes for people they couldn't do business with.

So their business could have blossomed. With everyone coming in to pray
for whoever shows up to get a free gay cake, just for coming by and getting
free spiritual healing by volunteers in the lobby, in order to qualify for the free gift cake. How wonderful!!!

It would've been a win win situation, and if people didn't want to be prayed over
to get their free gay cake, they wouldn't step foot near this business....


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?
> 
> I think any stone throwing came afterwards, right?
> 
> ...



>>> How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?

Great question.  One would have to put one's feet in the shoes of the people in question. That's why I mentioned the refusal to serve black people.  Remember "whites" only water fountains?  Remember back of the bus?... yeah well this is the same thing only gays... refusing to serve gays is a vicious slap... not physical but a violation of human rights none the less.  I'm white, as shown, but I've also been violated in this manner by anti-white male bias to "right the wrongs" of my forefathers.  Whether it's being overlooked for a promotion cycle because of the color of ones skin and gender, or some other act of discrimination, being discriminated against in this fashion is a vicious blow.  

>>> If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?

No.  Turning down a high publicity death is different.  That is turning down one person because of publicity.  Being adverse to publicity is not discrimination based on race, creed, sexual preference or what not. 

>>> The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?

That is no different than asking for acceptance of the KKK.  Is it permitted to be in the KKK? yes.  Does that mean I should call for acceptance and understanding of a group of racists? no probably not... 

>>> I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.

Respect both... don't think so but respect your right to do so.   What is there to respect about gay bashing? Constitutionally necessary? yes... just as with the KKK you are free to be gay basher in this country so long as you don't use violence.  As you say this more a necessity of a free society (Constitution).  Respect is not quite the word I would pick.  accept maybe...

>>> Am I the minority in the wrong here?

Partly, yes. Partly, no


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

How about: keeping all marriage private and out of the hands of the state, period.
And only govern contracts through the state, which can apply to ANY individuals of
any race, religion, gender, orientation, belief whether religious political or secular...

What? What's that?
Recognizing and treating POLITICAL BELIEFS equally protected under the
first and fourteenth amendment as RELIGIOUS BELIEFS??? WHAT? NO!

We can't have consistent standards that respect people the same, regardless of views! 
We'd actually get problems SOLVED if political parties were treated as separate churches and decided their own policies, reps, and funding themselves.

We'd actually get our government BACK from political hijackers if we separated
political beliefs from constitutional standards that are independent and universal!

Ya think?



WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> we'd actually get our government back from political hijackers if we separated
> political beliefs from constitutional standards that are independent and universal!



qft.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yes G5000. Shellfish and bottomdwellers as seafood are bad for you. That wisdom is still true. And Pork is bad, even if it is cooked well, there are health issues with it.

So the wisdom in the Bible is true; and Buddhist and Nation of Islam and other spiritual groups are finding this out and following that for better health.

As for homosexuality, adultery in general is bad for the physical mental emotional and relationship health of people. Homosexuality just happens to be one expression of sex between people outside of a committed marital relationship.  

Many Buddhists recognize homosexual relations are not natural, and they are not judgmental. The problem is teh karma that goes into people incarnated or manifesting in homosexual relations -- some karma can be that from person, but some of it may not be; so not all cases are the same and that is why it's impossible to judge from the outside.

In the end, the common factor is that it causes suffering. Something is wrong where it causes these conflicts. It is NOT natural. People may be born to live a life this way, but there is something unnatural causing it. Just because we don't judge the person for it, doesn't make it natural. It is still a sign of something out of balance outside the norm.



			
				copying and pasting online said:
			
		

> The Dalai Lama and Homosexuality
> 
> At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; 'From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)...is generally considered sexual misconduct.' He very soon found that he had stumbled into a pink minefield when some Western Buddhists, a significant number of who are gay, loudly expressed their outrage. Together with promoting the Dhamma, the Dalai Lama's main purpose in touring the West is to win support for his cause, and to this end he defiantly does not want to alienate anyone. As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the 'willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context'.
> 
> Dawa Tsering, spokesperson for the Office of Tibet released a suitably politically correct and safe statement; 'His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion and the full recognition of human rights for all.' Ruffled feathers were smoothed, gay Western Tibetan Buddhists left convinced that the Dalai Lama approved of their sexual orientation and the Dalai Lama continued believing that homosexuality is wrong - only now making a careful note never to say so again in public.



I was looking for a longer quote taken from this same statement, I believe. This citation of it seems to clarify the Dalai Lama still holds that homosexuality is unnatural; but focused on how it is wrong to discriminate/abuse/oppress anyone to cause suffering on the basis of this or ANY human rights issue. The issue of REACTION to homosexuality is a separate issue, and one we can address globally among ALL people, INCLUDING those with views either for or against homosexuality.  The statement was so open ended, even if ppl oppose homosexuality and argue for equal human rights to their beliefs, his statement would still cover not discriminating against those people either!

It still doesn't mean homosexuality is natural, just because you tolerate and don't discriminate against people over this point.  Respecting where people are with their beliefs and process of spiritual growth, is part of the universal "human rights" and nature. however ppl interpreted his response is part of their growth. We have to learn on our own that by "tolerating" pro-gay views, guess what, this means "tolerating" anti-gay as well. The Dalai Lama tolerated them by not forcing them to change; but they could not tolerate his response until he changed the way he worded it.  So he grew in his tolerance, but what did they learn?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality.  If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings.   It's that simple.  If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.
> ...



These bakers had baked special event cakes for this same couple before.  It isn't a matter of picking up a cake.  Put the damn cake in a cab.

Wedding cakes are tiered.  They require construction so they don't fall over.   If it was a sheet cake or a two layer cake, this would never have happened.  It would have been like the birthday cake they made before.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So was the location they had to assemble the cake a gay assembly area? Or does a piece of land become gay land only some number of hours before and after two gays are getting married?  It's ok to create a gay cake if it's not for a gay wedding?  Or is the issue assembling a gay cake at a gay wedding location?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Adultery, fornication, promiscuity cause disease.  It's not like they had antibiotics in those days.   Better to just make a rule that says "don't".  

Examination of Egyptian mummies do show the existence of an AIDS like virus.  Egypt at its end normalized homosexuality.  It does not take a biblical scholar to figure out that these rules made exceptional sense for the time.  Don't allow a menstruating woman in your house at least until kotex is invented.   Do not suffer a witch to live because those women who make a living gathering plants and small animals out in the wilderness make poisons that can kill days after the witch has moved on.

They were freaking geniuses to have figured out that much.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

I had a grandmother on the other side of the family that taught us that  God would make us blind if we masturbated.
I wondered if I could do it up and until I needed glasses.
The stupid shit many religious folks believe.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



All dead people can have viruses in them and the viruses that the Egyptian mummies in no way indicated anything whatsoever that they were as a result of the mummies being homosexual or having been involved in homosexual sex.
Your claim is the craziest shit and stretch I have ever heard. Totally false and without any basis in fact whatsoever. Your claim that Egypt at its end normalized is also absurd. Other than a few drawings that some interpreted to be men embracing what evidence do you have to support your absurd claims?


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?
> ...



Thank you for sharing your honest thinking and direct/to the point posts and replies. 

1. I happen NOT to compare orientation with race. Because I know of cases where "spiritual healing" changed people's homosexual/transgender orientation that
was either caused by abuse or otherwise unnatural to them, unwanted or hurtful.

I have NEVER heard of someone "changing race" because spiritual healing changed it. 
If anything, people become at peace with their natural race because of forgiveness healing them, as people who become at peace with their natural orientation following spiritual healing (whether they make peace with being gay, straight, trans, assexual/abstinent etc.)

So the same way you say 2. is not equivalent, I say 1 is also two different things also!



			
				E and R said:
			
		

> 2. >>> If I provide funeral services to people, but turn down business such as a high publicity death that I personally or for whatever reason don't want to be associated with,
> would that have caused people to judge me or my business so personally?
> 
> No.  Turning down a high publicity death is different.  That is turning down one person because of publicity.  Being adverse to publicity is not discrimination based on race, creed, sexual preference or what not.



2. I'm saying "for whatever reason" you don't judge people for it. Maybe this is your reasoning, but it shows you don't judge the person for it. So why not respect all reasons?

I happen to be a consent person. If someone has some issue, even if it is wrong, I feel the problem needs to be RESOLVED before asking someone to change it - FREELY by consent.
Or it doesn't solve problems but creates more. (for ex: I am against abortion as most people I know want to avoid it, of course; but am pro-choice because it can't be forced.
No pro-life person I know has to be "forced by law" to have those beliefs. So why not
work things out where all people agree to respect consent by free choice, not by force.)

So if someone has an issue with serving blacks or gays, this or that, this issue/conflict should be addressed BEFORE doing business in any situation REQUIRING it. Why ask for problems to pop up later? why not address them up front? so just forcing people by law is NOT solving the problem. We should be working these things out regardless, just for the good in itself.



			
				E and R said:
			
		

> 3.
> >>> The issue remains, if we want inclusion and respect for pro-gay views where is the acceptance and understanding for anti-gay views?
> 
> That is no different than asking for acceptance of the KKK.  Is it permitted to be in the KKK? yes.  Does that mean I should call for acceptance and understanding of a group of racists? no probably not...



3. Actually, yes there are places to work with even extremely biased/intolerant groups
if you can pinpoint what their real focus or issue is they want to achieve.

I had spoken at length by phone with a Grand Dragon of the Klan, about how could we achieve the same goals they want for segregation and preservation of separate races WITHOUT breaking laws or imposing/oppressing unfairly?

One solution I mentioned was organizing communities and govts like university departments, where you HAVE people who specialize in "African American" culture/studies working on solving problems in both Africa and American, and guaranteeing self-representation and self-determination so there IS a recognition and allowance for the Black communities to represent themselves, as with the KKK wanting to represent themselves.

The difference is this affiliation is done FREELY not forced by discrimination or ugliness.

The Asian American interests are organized among those interested in this area.
And so why not the European American cultural interests and history? Everyone can be equally included, protected and cherished as a contributing culture to society worldwide.

So there is a way to work tolerably with groups with strong beliefs in this area.
I know someone whose Black relatives were friends with KKK in the South/Alabama and worked together because there was respect between families as having their own ways.



			
				E and R said:
			
		

> 4.
> >>> I respect both, and believe that is Constitutionally necessary.
> 
> Respect both... don't think so but respect your right to do so.   What is there to respect about gay bashing? Constitutionally necessary? yes... just as with the KKK you are free to be gay basher in this country so long as you don't use violence.  As you say this more a necessity of a free society (Constitution).  Respect is not quite the word I would pick.  accept maybe...



4. best way to stop the bashing is acknowledge it is a mutual problem and don't add to
it while you are trying to calm it down.

I respect their right to free speech and to express grievances, even in anger where it comes out this way. That is part of the grieving and resolution process. the "bashing" comes from pressure of feeling insulted, left out, or wronged in teh face of mutual hypocrisy. 

Guess what, that bashing stops when people listen to what is being denied, the right to express beliefs without being bashed either!

so no, I do not say that the abuse of free speech to harass and block due process is correct. but it is the result of other rights being abridged, on both sides, causing the bashing.

So in the meantime I tolerate the mutual bashing, while seeking to redress grievance
causing it to come out that way. When you take care of the conflicts, I find the language
moves toward mutual respect. Once someone is treated with that same respect first.



			
				E and R said:
			
		

> 5.
> >>> Am I the minority in the wrong here?
> 
> Partly, yes. Partly, no



5. as we all are. thank you for pointing this out.
as we learn how much we stand to gain from each other,
and help each other correct misgivings or biases we ALL have,
then we quit the bashing and fingerpointing.

like the passage in the Bible that we first remove the beam from our 
own eyes to help our neighbor with the splinter which we can see from our angle.
We help each other at the same time.
if you substitute the concept of "bias" here it makes sense that we all
have faults and should not be ashamed as we are only human and project this way!
Until we learn, from each other, as we do here on these forums sharing back and forth.

Thank you for joining in. I like your attitude and your intelligent specific replies.
it's good to have that. and I hope your influence inspires the same in others
to talk more civilly and respectfully as you do! Great job and I look forward
to reading more of your posts! We need more friendliness and less ugliness in politics!


----------



## paperview (Sep 5, 2013)

The cake is a lie.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Dear Gadawg and Katzndogz:
The simplest way i could sum up the common factor, in whether good things pass on and multiply or bad things escalate and implode on people, is not whether we are perfect or not, but whether we FORGIVE our faults so we can correct them and grow in bigger upward directions.

all these negatives you cite, nobody would be engaging in ill poisonings or things bringing on disease if they were healthy spiritually.

So that forgiveness or unforgiveness is the common factor.
And then it manifests as all this ill, whether someone's choice, unnatural or natural, 
environmental or nurture.  Things go wrong and don't get healed or corrected if 
there is more ill will going on than good will.

So this power of good will to overcome bad will 
is what it means to put God's will first, to do all things with love and truth
that place the "greater good of humanity" above any selfish reasons and choices.

You don't have to argue using the Bible to defend what is good will!

If it's not good for humanity and health in general, then it is on the side of
causing problems and imbalance. Religions have been used to establish agreement
on standards, but that does not work with people under different ways of
expressing universal laws or truths. why not stick to common wisdom you
both agree makes sense? that should be enough to arrive at the same
conclusions what is healthy or not. what is natural or not. just pure common sense!


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 5, 2013)

paperview said:


> The cake is a lie.



And maybe the icing on the cake is equally sinful?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So if my brother breathed Agent Orange going against Charlie for 3 years in The Nam the reason he has cancer and thousands also do, many have died, is because they were not "healthy spiritually"?
You are bat shit crazy on that one.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 5, 2013)

The Old Testament says that if someone curses their parents they should be put to death.

I wonder why all the homophobes refuse to enforce this Biblical law while feel its ok to harrass Gays due to the Bible.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

Lots of good responses that go in different directions so i'll reply in separate messages.



emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > >>> How is not wanting to serve someone "throwing a stone"?
> ...



Two different topics, yes.  But both are equally bad to be a victim of, from perspective of the victim.  What does it matter why a person is being victimized?  There is some subtle hint here that the victimization is justified in the case of orientation.  I disagree.  Is there a possibility someone can change orientation? why not.. But what point does it make to justify it?  Because orientation can and has changed in some cases?  Just because I can change gender from male to female, does that mean discrimination against males is suddenly ok because I have a way out of being male?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 5, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> The Old Testament says that if someone curses their parents they should be put to death.
> 
> I wonder why all the homophobes refuse to enforce this Biblical law while feel its ok to harrass Gays due to the Bible.


My sister cursed my mom the last time that they saw each other. She dropped the F bomb left and right which is why I hate the word so much and as much as I would have wanted to snap my sister in half like a hockey stick had I been there, I know that God will take care of her *way* better than I ever could...especially if she isn't sorry. 

God bless you and my mom always!!!   

Holly

P.S. "Thou shall not kill." is the reason why certain "laws" as you call them are not enforced. I guess that this means that God may be the only person who can put people to death.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> 2. I'm saying "for whatever reason" you don't judge people for it. Maybe this is your reasoning, but it shows you don't judge the person for it. So why not respect all reasons?
> 
> I happen to be a consent person. If someone has some issue, even if it is wrong, I feel the problem needs to be RESOLVED before asking someone to change it - FREELY by consent.
> Or it doesn't solve problems but creates more. (for ex: I am against abortion as most people I know want to avoid it, of course; but am pro-choice because it can't be forced.
> ...



You say you are a "consent" person.  Ok, I'm a committing harm is bad person...

In your case of abortion, how does the baby provide consent to be killed?  Consent only works when the person being harmed is allowed to have a voice, to express consent or not.  In the case of the gay person being discriminated against, the gay person did not consent to being harmed, nor did the baker consent to being harmed by being forced to bake for just anyone irregardless of orientation.  So that makes this a traditional case requiring judgement to decide who is being harmed.  If you believe this to be a civil rights case then which person's rights trump the others: The right of the individual to refuse service or the right of the individual to shop in America without being discriminated against?  We created civil rights laws to eliminate discrimination.  Honestly I don't see this as any different than race discrimination.  If you want to sell to the public at large you should not be able to discriminate based on race, creed, orientation, etc...  Well, not and still be able to sell to the public at large.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



If the duty is just yes, he is to be punished. They entered into a contract, remember? Sigh, nice try though. You can't just explain me away Mr. Brown. Get serious.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 5, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> 3. Actually, yes there are places to work with even extremely biased/intolerant groups
> if you can pinpoint what their real focus or issue is they want to achieve.
> 
> I had spoken at length by phone with a Grand Dragon of the Klan, about how could we achieve the same goals they want for segregation and preservation of separate races WITHOUT breaking laws or imposing/oppressing unfairly?
> ...



Yes, these issues are correcting themselves over time.  We are becoming more civilized in some respects.  It may not seem that way.  But in my experience most people are focused on the now so much that they loose track of just how far we've come.  

I live in a somewhat mixed family.  I have a gay brother in law, a black sister in law, ... 
We've come a very long way since the race riots of the 60s and 70s..

I thank you as well for the reasoned argument.    FYI I'm very willing to change my mind on issues, for example, I used to hold your same opinion on the gay issues.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

I find it fascinating how fundamental christains have decided that when the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, it is a sin, for which you can burn in hell, but when the Bible says that eating shellfish is an abomination, it is mearly a good suggestion since it might make you sick. This begs the question of all you cherry pickers: Is the crop good this year?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 5, 2013)

Besides:

*The Law of Moses calls for the release of servants maimed by their employers:*

26 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Exodus 21:26-27

* The Mosaic Law also condemns kidnapping a person to sell as a slave&#8212;an act punishable by death:*

16 Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper&#8217;s possession.

Exodus 21:16

7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 24:7

*Unlike the antebellum South, Israel was to offer safe harbor to (foreign) runaway slaves: *

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Deuteronomy 23:15

For one thing, the term &#8220;slave&#8221; or &#8220;slavery&#8221; in the Old Testament is often a mistranslation. The Mosaic Law typically refers to &#8220;servitude&#8221; as indentured service--much like arrangements in colonial America: those who couldn&#8217;t pay for their voyage to the New World would work for seven years to pay off their debt, and then they were free to operate in society as ordinary citizens.

What&#8217;s interesting about contracted servitude in Israel was that it was, first of all, voluntary: a person would &#8220;sell himself&#8221; or parcel out family members to work, and they would in return receive clothing, a roof over their heads, and food on the table. Servitude was also limited to seven years unless the servant voluntarily chose lifelong servitude, which brought both stability and security in difficult economic times.

I do know what I'm talking about.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2013)

Two Thumbs said:


> People have the right to refuse to buy from a place.
> 
> and that's fine
> 
> ...



People have a right to refuse to buy.  

Businesses do not have a right to refuse to sell.  This is actually black letter law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Yeah, that is what I meant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> ...



Refusing to bake a cake for a ceremony you disagree with means you hate people? Does that mean people that refuse to make cakes for human toilet coming out parties hate kinky people?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > novasteve said:
> ...



It didn't end there, the couple filed a complaint with the state in order to force other people who bake cakes to conform to their beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> > Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.
> ...



Where there is no legitimate reason to oppose free choice one must conclude that the person is a totalitarian asshole.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> A business is judged on the quality of their product and how they treat their customers
> 
> If a bakery makes horrible cakes then the customer is justified to let the community know that they make bad cakes
> If a bakery refuses to serve you, the customer is justified to let the community know why they weren't served



And the bakery is equally justified in explaining that they don't serve assholes who want the state to force people into slavery.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> A baker has the right to say "We refuse to serve gay weddings and are willing to face the consequences"
> 
> Do they really think their decisions have no consequences?



Does the couple that thinks they can force people into slavery believe they can escape the consequences?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I had a grandmother on the other side of the family that taught us that  God would make usg blind if we masturbated.
> I wondered if I could do it up and until I needed glasses.
> The stupid shit many religious folks believe.



You don't know that she really believed that as a religious principle or just was using it as a stern warning.

In the supermarket I opened my bag of chocolate chips and was eating them in the checkout line.  A man behind me said "Don't eat those.  They aren't cooked you'll get sick."   His mother told him that to keep him from eating the chips meant for cookie baking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



You prefer people to lie rather than tell the truth? There is no way to  describe the fact that homosexuality is outside the norm without using  language that has a negative connotation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > People have the right to refuse to buy from a place.
> ...



Which explains why states never go after people for refusing service.

Wait, it actually makes you an idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I had a grandmother on the other side of the family that taught us that  God would make us blind if we masturbated.
> I wondered if I could do it up and until I needed glasses.
> The stupid shit many religious folks believe.



Damn, the idiot is still here spouting idiocy.

Want to explain why you think a myth that crosses cultures, and religions, is religious in origin? Is it because you are a bigoted asshole who wants the government to force people to obey your whims? Or is that totally separate from you inability to think?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 5, 2013)

I almost ate a Weat Thin, but discovered just before I put it in my mouth that it had the image of the Virgin Mary on it. I sold it on E-bay for $41,000.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I had a grandmother on the other side of the family that taught us that  God would make usg blind if we masturbated.
> ...



Of course she taught that as a religious principle and as a stern warning.
Proof positive that most all of the "religious principles" taught to youth in this way are a pile of dog squeeze.
And one wonders why the young adults of today are not attending church. You can not fool kids. They are not stupid. They know there is nothing wrong with their gay and lesbian friends, that they are not immoral, they are not unclean, they are not second class citizens and they deserve the same respect and equality as everyone.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> I almost ate a Weat Thin, but discovered just before I put it in my mouth that it had the image of the Virgin Mary on it. I sold it on E-bay for $41,000.



Should have held out. Windbag would have offered 43K.
And then backed out of it with an excuse.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I had a grandmother on the other side of the family that taught us that  God would make us blind if we masturbated.
> ...



You state that a myth crosses religions and then ask if it is religious in origin.
And then call me the idiot.


Wham it zero on set. EP team on the ready. KO team on the pads. 4th string D to group.


----------



## Zona (Sep 5, 2013)

Not sure if not serving someone because they are gay or not...but I do know its legal to protest bigots.  God bless America.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

How about if the parents of the gay folks come in and want a cake baked for the reception after the wedding.
How do the bakers know if there are not names and 2 of the same sex dolls on the cake?
Do folks really stay up at night worrying "OH NO, I AM GOING TO HAYELL IF BAKE A CAKE FOR FAGGOTS. GOD IS GOING TO BURN ME WITH THEM"?
What other reason would someone deny them and refuse to bake the cake other than they believe God will take retribution against them for doing so?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No, I asked why you think it is religious, which explains why you are an idiot.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



When someone tells you God will punish you for doing something you believe it is not religious?
In what other way is the word GOD used other than in terms of RELIGION?

And you claim I am the idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 5, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



When you start adding extra things into your stories I suspect you are lying.


----------



## auditor0007 (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Time for an oldie but goodie --
> *Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else   *
> 
> 
> ...



Gotta love scripture.


----------



## Esmeralda (Sep 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > People have the right to refuse to buy from a place.
> ...


Yep.  If you allow people to say they won't serve gays, then it's okay for people to say they won't serve anyone they don't like the look of or don't like their lifestyle.  Say, for example, I don't like tall people and refuse to deal with them, or redheads.  Or Native Americans, or hippies, or bikers, or anyone under 18 or over 60.  It opens up a whole can of worms.  That's why there is a law against discrimination.  If you want to go into business and deal with the public, you need to deal equally with all the public.  What are these ultra religious Christians going to do if a Muslim couple comes into their bakery and wants a cake with Islamic characteristics on it? Refuse to make it because they don't like Islam?


----------



## birddog (Sep 6, 2013)

It's gotten more and more PC with queers especially now that we have one as president!


----------



## Noomi (Sep 6, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Time for an oldie but goodie --
> ...



That is some funny shit right there.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Funny, us Christians get assailed for being bigoted, yet I see a few people on the LGBT and gay marriage side engaging in it. How disappointing.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I had a grandmother on the other side of the family that taught us that  God would make us blind if we masturbated.
> I wondered if I could do it up and until I needed glasses.
> The stupid shit many religious folks believe.



Mine said I'd go blind if I looked at girls

I told her I'd stop when I needed glasses.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

You guys don't think it's funny when people make fun of or criticize gay people, but you seem not to mind when it comes to making fun of or criticizing Christians. Why the double standard?


----------



## Noomi (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> You guys don't think it's funny when people make fun of or criticize gay people, but you seem not to mind when it comes to making fun of or criticizing Christians. Why the double standard?



Are you referring to the video that was posted that mocks your religion? I realise it was offensive to you, but where in the video was there any false information. Sounds like this person did their research.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > You guys don't think it's funny when people make fun of or criticize gay people, but you seem not to mind when it comes to making fun of or criticizing Christians. Why the double standard?
> ...



I would have had my head cut off if I posted such a satirical video about the Quran, Noomi. I doubt you know what research she did, you should fact check her. 

That video is utterly offensive. Why is it we Christians are the butt of your jokes?


----------



## editec (Sep 6, 2013)

There is nothing Christian about bigotry.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

editec said:


> There is nothing Christian about bigotry.



Oh yes, I agree, but there's nothing mature about being bigoted and then accusing others of being bigoted either. I wonder if people would actually do research on my faith instead of believing everything they are told about it and assuming it's true....

I doubt it.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> I would have had my head cut off if I posted such a satirical video about the Quran, Noomi. I doubt you know what research she did, you should fact check her.
> 
> That video is utterly offensive. Why is it we Christians are the butt of your jokes?



Maybe that video could have been called_ Innocence of Christians.
_
Advice:


TemplarKormac said:


> What? Did it strike a nerve? Last time I checked, this person has the  right to post anything they wish as long as it was relevant to the OP.  The First Amendment, ya know? Grow some thicker skin please.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

By the way...weren't you defending the dude who made that anti-Muslim video that was the Christian equivalent of making Jesus into a pig fucker?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > I would have had my head cut off if I posted such a satirical video about the Quran, Noomi. I doubt you know what research she did, you should fact check her.
> ...



Actually, I've see posts of your own where you could benefit from that advice, hypocrite.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> By the way...weren't you defending the dude who made that anti-Muslim video that was the Christian equivalent of making Jesus into a pig fucker?



Uh... just what does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > I would have had my head cut off if I posted such a satirical video about the Quran, Noomi. I doubt you know what research she did, you should fact check her.
> ...



And another thing, if I started railing on gay people right here and now, where would your thick skin be? I didn't think so. Don't you dare lecture me.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > By the way...weren't you defending the dude who made that anti-Muslim video that was the Christian equivalent of making Jesus into a pig fucker?
> ...


Think on it.



TemplarKormac said:


> Actually, I've see posts of your own where you could benefit from that advice, *hypocrite*.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You first:



paperview said:


> Uh oh.  Someone's stinky tampon is all aflame.



Now, if you will excuse me, hypocrite.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


lol

Gays and lesbians  have been called every name conceivable, compared to  murderers,     thieves, dog fuckers, pedophiles, -- and get blamed for the entire     general breakdown of  families and society, accused of 'going after     their children,' every  form of debauchery known to man is laid at     our doorstep; 

I've had folks here call me "less than human," a child     of Satan,  worse than terrorists and have even had prominent     television pastors  blame ME for 911.

I've got pretty thick skin. _ Don't you lecture me._


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



And you think it's okay to repay an eye for an eye? Return the favor? How puerile. Does it ever occur to you that you denigrate your own cause when you participate in the very same things you claim are being done to you? Believe it or not, I am quite tolerant of gay people, I have friends who are gay, I play MMORPG's with gay people. But they have way more tolerance for my beliefs as I do theirs. Moreso than you. 

Being thick skinned would not be considered provoking other people in an attempt to hide your own insecurities. I see it all the time. You  lack self esteem and are in over your head. 

You don't have people of your faith being slowly driven into the backwater of society. You are being encouraged while we are being destroyed and degraded. You don't have your society slowly alienating you from the very nation that revered you. You, my friend are being placed atop a pedestal you don't deserve to stand on. You should be thankful that you're getting such treatment. You want tolerance of your own way of life but are unwilling to tolerate others. You are the typical hypocrite, do as I say, not as I do.  You want equality for your own kind but are unwilling to give it to others who are different from you. (Gee sounds familiar, doesn't it?) 

How dare you think this is a one sided issue? 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utyiN7g0TkE]Brawl at Pride Fest in Seattle. Street preachers get attacked by crowd. 30 June 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

Like I said, don't you dare lecture me. Not now, not ever.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



And even funnier - the post I quoted from you here:



TemplarKormac said:


> What? Did it strike a nerve? Last time I  checked, this person has the  right to post anything they wish as long  as it was relevant to the OP.  The First Amendment, ya know? Grow some  thicker skin please.



Left off this part from you:


> Negged for throwing a tantrum.


You made that comment to someone _who made a joke_ about a video posted of Rachel "Madcow." 

That last part I left off because I didn't think it was relevant to show how your defense of the "Madcow" video and that you negged someone because of a _joke_...

And you then proceed to throw a tantrum because_ oh dearie_...a video was posted by a satirist about biblical marriage - and tada, to emphasize how thick your skin is, you neg me now.

You are one absolutely adorable fundie.  

In your words: "Did I strike a nerve?"


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Started?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Grow a pair, ok?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



There goes your tolerance again.  

You are an absolutely adorable liberal, aren't you? Speaking of thick skin, why should you be worried that I negged you? Oh that's right... nevermind.  I have a sneaking suspicion that you are either someone's sock, or revealing contents of a private conversation with another user without permission. Just how do you know what neg comments I made to another user? That is unless you have two accounts here.

I negged you for your thinking it is mature to provoke people. To denigrate someone's religion with impunity. This isn't a playground. And you're out of argument. Digging up dirt on people is what makes any straight man with a head on his shoulders revile you and your kind. You would garner a lot more respect for gay rights among Christians if you practiced what you preached and showed them the same type tolerance you want from them. The fact that you lament here on this board about what names you were called for being gay shows me you have no thicker skin now than you did then. Thick skin means having a short memory.

Yes I struck a nerve alright, instead of arguing this with me issue like an adult, you resort to this. This not only speaks to your intelligence, but your tolerance. You really are a piece of work, aren't you?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Since when have you ever seen me denigrate a homosexual on this board?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Um no. How about you grow a brain first. Troll.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Yeah. I'm a sock.  Been here four years before you, and I'm a sock. lol

You advertised you negged someone because they "had a tantrum."  Then you had a tantrum.

In your words:  "Did I strike a nerve?"


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> This isn't a playground.



Link?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
     The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against     homosexuals in the US.

     Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny     rights to others.

     Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how     ridiculous it is, and things change.

      150 years ago, slavery was an established societal         norm.

        100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established         societal norm.

        50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


      And 50 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage  will be an established       societal norm.

     That is something you can take to the bank.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against     homosexuals in the US.
> 
> Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny     rights to others.
> ...



Right, or we can call that moving the goalposts.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't a playground.
> ...



They call this a "message board" do they not? Do you see "playground" anywhere in the name? How asinine.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Yeah. I'm a sock.  Been here four years before you, and I'm a sock. lol
> 
> You advertised you negged someone because they "had a tantrum."  Then you had a tantrum.
> 
> In your words:  "Did I strike a nerve?"



Tantrum? Was I typing in all caps? Yelling at the top of my lungs? Hurling expletives in your direction? Calling you vulgar names? Threatening to kill you? Just what tantrum was I having exactly?

Care to explain? Oh observant one?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against     homosexuals in the US.
> 
> Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny     rights to others.
> ...


Societal norm is an odd term... like fairness, it has no real meaning.  It's a phrase that assumes assumes truth told by the teller simply because of the telling.

Better to say legal, illegal.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



People don't talk or leave messages at playgrounds?

Where do you get off saying no one can have fun on this board?

See sections of this board on Humor, Hobbies, and The Taunting Arena.

And yes, you do appear to have a stick up you butt today.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against     homosexuals in the US.
> 
> Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny     rights to others.
> ...



Ahh I see. I finally see it now. Thank you for showing me the light. 

Why, for someone who hates Christians, for someone who detests them so much; for someone who accuses them of being bigots, do you use their Bible to justify your homosexuality? Can you answer that for me? Why is that? Why do those who participate in sin try to use the Word of God to justify their sin? 

Oh yes, I've heard homosexuals before: "Well the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin." As I have evidenced in this thread already, that is a lie. You claim others use it to "deny you your rights" yet many of your kind sit there and use it to justify what it speaks against.

That's pathetic.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Actually, they talk, not type. Unlike this messageboard, children participate in face to face interpersonal communication. If you are going to have a serious discussion, have one. Don't make snide remarks and or retorts in place of a cogent argument. Or did we all of a sudden forget debate etiquette here?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Ohhhhh....clever.     

You mad, bro?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> ...



How ironic, societal norms as they have so been so described, eventually fade away. Slavery, racism... homosexuality...

Oh the irony of that ppv's comment.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

I don't hate Christians.  See....right there, you just lied about me.  That's a sin, isn't it?

I detest bigots.  Unless you think all Christians are bigots.  I don't.

Shame.  No wonder you complain about being so persecuted. Poor little wictim.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> ...


Fine....then you can call condemning slavery "moving the goalposts".    And then whine about it.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. I'm a sock.  Been here four years before you, and I'm a sock. lol
> ...



Tissue, little man?


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 6, 2013)

Templar Cognac your a debater? Ha!


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



He seems to be missing a sense of humor, doesn't he?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Nah, just bemused. That all you're doing is making quips, not arguments. 

You mad, sistah?


----------



## NLT (Sep 6, 2013)

You homos need your own gay bakery. I will donate the ovens


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I think you "struck a nerve."


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Why do those who participate in sin try to use the Word of God to justify their sin?


Irony.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Not when I'm having this much fun, little man.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> your a debater? Ha!



Coming from someone who not just last night referred to me as a hermaphrodite, that's funny. Sure, you can lecture me about debating when you actually learn how to debate, instead of calling people such vulgar things.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Yeah some folks take their gay bashing pretty seriously.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against     homosexuals in the US.
> 
> Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny     rights to others.
> ...



If we have society to establish a norm!

The one thing you can take to the bank is what has been proven in the historical record.  Once a society starts down the road of perversion and depravity it doesn't stop until it is totally destroyed.  That you can take to the bank.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You seem to be missing a sense of tolerance, aren't you?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Granny stated to us that if we masturbated God would make us go blind is what I posted.
Then you posted why did I think it was religious.
And then I posted back because *SHE MENTIONED GOD AND WHAT GOD WOULD DO*
And you claim mentioning *GOD* is not religious in any way in that post.
All the while claiming I am the idiot.
I have restrained myself long enough.
Quantum Windbag, with all due respect, you are the idiot and a large one at that.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Based on what?   Hurting your widdle feewings?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



And you take your lack of seriousness pretty seriously. Note that if I ever told jokes about gay people in the way you did, I would be ridiculed in the exact same fashion.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > your a debater? Ha!
> ...



You're a hermaphrodite?    Ahhhhhhhhh.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And we know you bruise easily, cupcake.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yep, just as I thought. So much fail on your end. You want respect for your positions yet you are incapable of defending them. 

Who woulda thunk it?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



You're smart? 

Nahhhhhhhhhh


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I don't bruise easily, I do the bruising. Namely, since you have zero argument and are only being a prick rather than a participant in the discussion.

Next.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I'm sorry, what were you debating again?  That this is not a playground where people can have fun?  Or that children can't "write" messages in the sand or use chalk boards at a playground?  Or that a playground for adults can't include making arguments about a baker's idiocy in loosing his business based on his hate for one of his best customers.  Or are you really arguing that typing a message isn't the same as speaking the same message or writing it down in script.  Or are you still arguing that there were no real slaves during Rome's empire.  LOL


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Funny, you brought this up, I didn't. How is it you take issue with such a minutial statement? Or were you afraid to take the rest of my argument on? This argument of yours is a strawman.

Originally, I was wondering why gay people here think it's okay to make fun of the beliefs of others, namely Christians, but then get all riled up and defensive if someone makes even the slightest quip about them? I was wondering why gay people and liberals call people like me bigots, but routinely participate in it?

Here's a little tidbit for you:

The Democratic Party founded the KKK, not only was it (the KKK) a racist group, it hated Jews and oh yes, homosexuals. As of now they still have that sin from their past roaming this country as we speak.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Because I find, sometimes, that the smallest phrases one utters are in fact very telling of what is going on.

What you can't see, or at least appear to not want to see, is a bunch of guys and gals smiling, entering in messages.  Your screams and declarations of expertise and demands that you alone have all the answers in the great question of should gays be allowed to live in our society are falling on deaf ears.  The debate as to whether gays will be accepted members of society is over.  The gay bashers had their moment in the sun with the prop 8 and DOMA acts.  It's over now.  Those acts upon further review, are now seen as vile.  It's over.  Done. The fork is in it.  You are beating a dead horse.  You appear to have steam coming off your head.  The folks you are chatting with appear to be smiling.  

Get over it.  Find yourself a gay person and talk to them man to gay person and maybe you'll find out they are not all the evil whack jobs you appear to believe they are.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> The Democratic Party founded the KKK, not only was it (the KKK) a racist group, it hated Jews and oh yes, homosexuals. As of now they still have that sin from their past roaming this country as we speak.



So now your threatening to call the KKK on me if I don't join in with your gay bashing routine?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I never said they were evil. Or were you not reading the part where I explicitly stated I HAD TWO OF THEM AS FRIENDS? The crux of your argument has fallen by the wayside. I know exactly how they work, having been friends with up to three of them at any given point in time over the past 4 years. Apparently I did get over it a long time ago.  What you have a problem with, sir, is my stating my beliefs on the subject.  Unlike you, when I say something serious, I don't expect jokes, quips, or namecalling in return. Or is there something wrong with an intellectual debate? 

I never claim to have any answers. I seek them out. What you should stop doing is performing psychoanalysis on someone just because they disagree with you.

Good day sir.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > The Democratic Party founded the KKK, not only was it (the KKK) a racist group, it hated Jews and oh yes, homosexuals. As of now they still have that sin from their past roaming this country as we speak.
> ...



Gee, I had you pegged for a serious minded poster there for a second. Where did I threaten you? I was stating a fact from history. Man, you are paranoid.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> ...



Huh, and here I thought the morality of owning another human being as a farm animal, then denying equality to generation upon generation of those people's children would be considered pretty perverse and depraved.

Yet here we are.

What was I thinking?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



That's the entire problem. You were thinking.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...





TemplarKormac said:


> ...
> Being thick skinned would not be considered provoking other people in an  attempt to hide your own insecurities. I see it all the time. You  lack  self esteem and are in over your head.
> ...


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Bingo.  My point exactly.  You are being paranoid.  The people in this thread were trying to have a discussion about the topic and YOU turned it into a personality thread.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:

In this instance of this bakery, do you think it was okay for others of your mindset to drive them out of business as they did? What if these bakers were gay? And what if Christians decided to mount such a ruckus that _they_ were driven out of business?

Are you getting me here? 

(Inhales deeply through his nose, exhales)

Ahh, the smell of hypocrisy is on the air.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Actually, I was trying to point out the blatant hypocrisy being exercised by people like you. Gay calls Christian bigoted, Gay engages in bigotry against Christian, therefore Gay is a bigot, and a hypocrite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not go along with the spirit of the thread? Or is it you lack reading comprehension skills? Were you not reading any of my posts before? Or can it be that instead of arguing me, you would rather insult me instead?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


All because he got his widdle fweelings hurt over a video! 

A video!  A fundamentalist getting butt hurt over a video. Hmmm.



Anyway, in case others missed it, here's  _America's Best Christian _sharing  with us the history of Biblical Marriage...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw]Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:
> 
> In this instance of this bakery, do you think it was okay for others of your mindset to drive them out of business as they did? What if these bakers were gay? And what if Christians decided to mount such a ruckus that _they_ were driven out of business?
> 
> ...



Not gay, but now I see the problem here.

You actually think 2% of the population drove this baker out of business.  ROFL OMG that's funny.  No dude.  The business was abandoned by the other 98% because this business refused to serve the 2%.  Duh.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Oh sure. Let's see if I can't find a video describing to you all the "history" of homosexuality.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:
> 
> In this instance of this bakery, do you think it was okay for others of your mindset to drive them out of business as they did? What if these bakers were gay? And what if Christians decided to mount such a ruckus that _they_ were driven out of business?
> 
> ...



They weren't boycotted because they were Christian.

They were boycotted because they were bigots.

And as I said they made the mistake of pissing off enough of their market to take a mortal financial wound so they put themselves out of business.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:
> ...



No, that 2% along with liberal activists drove them out of business. There were plenty of other businesses out there to serve the 2%. Why this particular one, huh?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:
> ...



I doubt it. So, since Truett Kathy made his stances known about what charities he donated to, why didn't the rest of the restaurant industry abandon Chick-fil-a? And so, the moral of your argument is:

Homosexuals are incapable of being bigots themselves.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



People don't like bigots.

Hell i wouldn't patronize a place that turned anyone away for no other reason than simple bigotry and prejudice.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So you care nothing for their religious beliefs? Would you have called them bigots if they were Muslim? My wager is that you would have said something along the lines of "well I can understand, they didn't want to violate their religious beliefs."


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Be my guest.  But be prepared when you find an accurate one, it doesn't make _Christians _look very good.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


I skimmed your posts... did you?  read them from someone else' shoes.  You are taking this discussion personally, because you see support of gays as an affront to your beliefs.  Yet say you have friends who are gay.. FYI remember the scene when Archie says some of his best friends are black.  Yeah it's like that.  It's one thing to have a relationship with someone of a minority, and another thing entirely to be willing and able to put your feet in their shoes.   Remember, I'm a southern white male christian. And yes I'm willing to fight for the rights of minorities in our society.  Esp. from those whom I think are throwing stones.  You appear to be knee jerk defending this baker's business because you feel the gays took their business away from them.  But that is not the case. The baker refused to do business, even though the laws are such that those who sell to the public are not allowed to discriminate.  Yet, they did.  The word got out.  And low and behold the 70% of this nation who are christians, boycotted the baker, oh yeah and the other 30%.  You are focused on the gays boycotting the baker but fail to rec. that the gays are only 2% of the population.

Templar, I'd buy you a beer if I could. But I think you are on the wrong side on this one.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I never said that did I

And obviously the Chik Fil A franchise is a different entity being nearly national and locally owned by various franchisees.

I doubt if anything that happened in one store would affect the entire chain. But individual stores could fall victim to boycotts.

This bakery on the other hand didn't have the strength of many franchises and was dependent on the local market it served.

The owners took a stand good for them now they have to pay the price because that stand cost them their business.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 6, 2013)

I am not suggesting anyone here actually hates gay folks.
But if you did, ok, fine.
But if you are really a defender of freedom and equal rights for everyone the standard for that in my book is: You are not even close to being a defender of liberty which this country is founded on UNLESS you stand up and fight for the rights of those YOU despise the most.
Nothing less. That is the bar. Either you practice that or you fall short.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Oh, that depends on your definition of "accurate" is, now doesn't it?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:
> ...


Isn't that what people who are against Public Accommodations Laws say all the time?

If a business was known to discriminate, they would not patronize the place and let word get out the business discriminates?

Free Market will take care it.  Well, here it did, and wala, now we see where the ox is ...gory.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Because having a stance and donating to charities is not the same as turning away customers based on sexual orientation.  Last I checked chick-fil-a will cater a gay wedding.

Ok, I'm lying I have no idea if they would. However if they refused to do so... well then you would have a similar situation.  The difference is huge here.  The democrats were calling for a boycott of chickfila because of the owner's beliefs, not because of the owners refusal to serve gays.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



No I don't.  Why should I?



> Would you have called them bigots if they were Muslim?



Of course I would.  Religion as an excuse for bigotry is still bigotry.

Doesn't Christianity tell its followers that only god has the right to judge others?



> My wager is that you would have said something along the lines of "well I can understand, they didn't want to violate their religious beliefs."



I hope you'd make a large wager because I would win that bet.

In fact I have said that  a Muslim who takes a job in a store that sells beer and bacon refuses to handle beer and bacon should be fired.

And I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of how baking a cake would put anyone's immortal soul in jeopardy.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Is this the part where you wiggle around Leviticus and pretend Christians haven't used the line about "they shall surely be put to _death_; their blood be upon them" to ...you know, kill homosexuals?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Exactly what i have been saying all along.

Any business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason but then they have to accept the consequences of that decision.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Bigot.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Or, simply find someone else to offer your patronage. Or did that thought never occur to you? Why destroy someone's livelihood over it?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Not caring is not bigotry it is apathy.

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



> a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance




I don't care what their beliefs are.

If they took a stand on their beliefs then good for them.  Now they can deal with the fallout.

Seems to me not too many of their fellow Christians stepped up to support them so maybe you should be castigating them.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yeah, apparently you people only like to read only one half of the Bible. Not only do you not like being stereotyped, you do the stereotyping. Since when have you seen packs of Christians in the streets looking for gay people to kill?

From the beginning man was vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). The Bible lists a number of covenants after this and usually there were some associated rule changes at this time. When there was a new covenant with Noah, man was allowed to eat clean and unclean meat (Genesis 9:3). With Moses, meat eating was even more strict, limiting them to eat only meat that was clean (e.g., Leviticus 11:47). In the new covenant in Christs blood, this was further opened up (Romans 14:14). And in heaven, we will be vegetarian again to complete the cycle (there will be no death in heaven [Revelation 21:4], so no meat will be available).



Is this the part where you say: "Did I strike a nerve?"


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



They destroyed their own business by not adapting to the times.

Sorry but if I started turning people away for personal reasons I would expect backlash from the community.

But then again I try to think about the consequences of my actions and I do not believe that simply serving a person in my business makes me liable for whatever sins they may be committing.

No rational person does.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


No.  The bakery was put out of business by it's owners. The owners lost their business when their customers abandoned them.  Their customers abandoned them because the bakery owner refused to serve to a gay couple at a gay wedding.   If the baker had taken the funds from the "gay" wedding and donated it to a christian charity, then the baker would still be in business.  Further if the LGBT/democrats called for a boycott because the baker donated to a charity, the christians would have trippled the baker's business.  

You see, it's not about political correctness.  It's about treating people as human beings.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *TemplarKormac*
> 
> 
> _
> So you care nothing for their religious beliefs?_



Did you when you defended the dude who made that anti-Islamic video that was the Muslim equivalent of turning Jesus into a pig fucker?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



In the context of the question, you would act regardless of their religious beliefs. That is called intolerance, bigotry and insensitivity. 

Intolerant-

 adj  (foll by of )

1. 	lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own

You are as guilty of this as you claim we are. Game. Set. Match.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by *TemplarKormac*
> >
> >
> > _
> ...



Didn't you ask that question already? Did you not see my answer? No? Well that's too bad for you isn't it?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Did you forget the word _history_ in there?

Geeze man. Pay attention to your own freakin' argument.



> Quote: Originally Posted by *TemplarKormac*
> 
> Oh sure. Let's see if I can't find a video describing to you all *the "history" of homosexuality. *


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Uh-huh.. you want gay people to be treated as human beings, but in return you allow them to dehumanize others. What a colossal double standard, Mr. Brown.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


I admit to being a bigot against homophobes and racists of all religions.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yeah, I know my own argument. And unlike you, I have read the entire book. Also unlike you, I don't have to cherrypick verses out of a religious text to justify myself.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Actually, that's called being a smart alec.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Explain please. How was the baker dehumanized?  If that happened, I'll defend the baker against that act.  Bring me to your side of the argument.  How was the baker dehumanized.  If that happened I will be every bit as angry as you are.  All humor would be gone... I would ask you to sign me up.  Uhm what are you protesting against again... protesters exercising free speech?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Not just refused service, the  lesbian walked into a bakery and asked to have a wedding cake made.  Happy repeat customer.

Owner informs her he doesn't do same-sex wedding cakes and then proceeds to tell her she was an *abomination*, and that her *"money is not equal."*

Temmy-boy leaves that part out.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Uhh, by being forcefully put out of business for exercising it's beliefs by others who cannot tolerate (oh there's that word again) a differentiating opinion? Have fun!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Sure, what website did you pull that from? Or are you lying through your teeth?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I would act?  Explain.  All I said was that they had the right to refuse service good for them I do not have to support them in their refusal do I?  Can I not take my business elsewhere if I do not agree with their actions?

Of course I can.  That is not bigotry intolerance or insensitivity.



> Intolerant-
> 
> adj  (foll by of )
> 
> ...



Yes I have no tolerance for bigots who use religion especially a religion that states no one but god is supposed to judge people as an excuse for their bigotry.

As I said before simply baking a cake for someone in no way makes the baker liable for the sins of the customer.

The baker did not have to attend the wedding or the reception all he had to do was treat this couple like he would anyone else indeed as he himself would want to be treated.  If he did that he would still be in business with happy customers referring new customers to him.

That is game set match.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



This is over the way Roe settled the issue of abortion.   It will be fought in the courts for the next 100 years, if we last that long.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Not the same as Roe.  Roe was bad law because it fails to defend the life of a helpless child. Civil rights laws are not being "fought" are they?  This is just another case of another classification of another minority group who's civil rights are being urinated on by some members of our society.  Sexual orientation will be added to the laws on civil rights and the issue will be put to bed, just as the issue on racism was put to bed.  Sure there will still be racists and homophobes but that does not mean the issue of civil rights is still in play.  Up next, I suspect, will be plural marriages.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Simple... how can you be intolerant of others intolerance? Does that not make you intolerant? It is for fear of being judged that you reject any form of judgement. You are incapable of accepting any criticism, and therefore lash out at it. 

Perhaps if people had a conscience instead of an agenda, yes indeed, he would still be in business.

Sorry, that was match point my friend.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Does an unborn child not have civil rights too?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


See, you wiggled out of Leviticus and how it was used through the centuries, just as I said you would. 

There is so much irony in your posts it nearly makes the eyes bleed.

Oh, and I've read the book, (who are you to declare what I have or haven't read?) I have, more than once.   Was raised by strict Catholics, had an uncle who was a priest, two aunts who were nuns, another uncle who was a missionary, a cousin who is a pastor of a large congregation, went to religious schools, and was drenched, utterly drenched  in Christianity my entire upbringing.

Sort of shoots your whole "I hate Christians" and I know nothing about the religion theory all to hell.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> As I said before simply baking a cake for someone in no way makes the baker liable for the sins of the customer.
> 
> The baker did not have to attend the wedding or the reception all he had to do was treat this couple like he would anyone else.  if he did that he would still be in business with happy customers referring new customers to him.
> 
> That is game set match.



If they participated in a same sex wedding, they are not responsible for the sins of their customer, they have committed their own, personal, sin for which they are answerable.  

Yes, they would have to attend the wedding.   Had they thought ahead and considered it more carefully, the baker might have agreed to bake the cake, but leave set up and construction of the tiers to the customer.   This same baker had baked cakes for this same customer before.  The customer ordered the cake, picked it up and took it to the birthday party.   Treat the wedding cake the same way.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Why is it just Leviticus? Are you afraid to read the rest of the book? That crystal ball shoved up your rear end is busted, pal. You made the mistake of judging the entire religion based off of your own experiences in only one denomination.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Don't run away.  Explain. Cause I really don't understand what you are saying.

How were they forcefully put out of business?  What actions did the LGBT community do to forcefully put this company out of business?  Slander?  Did they stop customers from entering?  Did they spit on customers?  Did they hit customers?  Did they yell and threaten customers?  

Or are you actually trying to say that it is my duty as a citizen to buy cake from this baker, and if I don't I'm committing a violent act against the baker.  

Explain your position.  I want to understand.  You appear to have some knowledge about this case, that I'm not familiar with.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


It's from the complaint made to the Bureau of Labor filed with the State.

Guess you don't really know much about the story, do you?

The owner doesn't deny he called them *abominations *before he turned them away.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



According to current law they don't if the mother decides to kill it before the last trimester.  But that's another thread.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Maybe.  but I would not refuse to serve someone in my business because I thought they were intolerant.  That is the very definition of tolerance now isn't it?



> It is for fear of being judged that you reject any form of judgement. You are incapable of accepting any criticism, and therefore lash out at it.



I really don't care what people think about me personally.  But I do care what the consequences my decisions reap may do to my business.



> Perhaps if people had a conscience instead of an agenda, yes indeed, he would still be in business.



Conscience?  Telling people you are unhappy with a business because they refused a simple request to serve someone has nothing to do with conscience.

It's a simple fact of business that if you piss someone off they'll tell a hundred people about it but if you treat them fantastically they might tell 5.

Which is why you do your best not to piss people off if you care about your business.

I equate this as to them refusing to serve Blacks or Jews even if it was a religious belief to turn away blacks or jews.

But that's just me.  Being free of religious dogma allows me treat everyone equally. Even if i were the religious sort I would treat everyone equally and let the deity do the judging.

BTW can you tell me how baking this cake would somehow make the baker liable for the gay sin?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You aren't providing any proof that he did. Links please. I asked you already, what website did you pull that from?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Any man who would sacrifice his conscience for the wills and whims of other men is not much of a man. 

By baking that cake for a gay couple you are expressing condonement for that type of behavior, thus making it sinful. Being free of "religious dogma" only allows you to treat others with impunity. This is what I mean by bigotry and intolerance. You folks are all the same, each and every time I encounter you, it's the same old line.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> It is for fear of being judged that you reject any form of judgement. You are incapable of accepting any criticism, and therefore lash out at it.


Irony.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

And here is the coup de grace:

From the Washington Times:



> A husband-and-wife bakery shop team in Oregon were forced to close their shop doors and move to cheaper digs &#8212; their home &#8212; after gay-rights activists hounded them and drove away contract business because they refused for Christian reasons to bake for a same-sex wedding.
> 
> Aaron and Melissa Klein own and operate Sweet Cakes by Melissa. In the past few months, they&#8217;ve faced heated scrutiny &#8212; some in the form of physical threats &#8212; from those in the gay-rights crowd who decried their May refusal to bake for a lesbian couple who wanted to marry.
> 
> ...



Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > It is for fear of being judged that you reject any form of judgement. You are incapable of accepting any criticism, and therefore lash out at it.
> ...



Yeah, just read the above post and see what real irony is.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> By baking that cake for a gay couple you are expressing condonement for that type of behavior, thus making it sinful.


Why?  Does the act of baking a cake require the baker to have sex with customer?  Does the baker have to make some public statement of support for the wedding party?  Does the baker have to be gay to make a cake for gays?  When you make a cake for gays is that cake now a gay cake and the baker a gay baker? Do gays have some sort of disease that if you touch them or get near them their gayness will rub off?

You said above that you have gay friends.  Do you condone their behavior?  Does them being your friends mean that you are a champion of the gay community?  How can you be a christian and condone their behavior?  How can they be your friends if you don't condone their behavior?  Explain.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Next up:

From the Christian Post:



> Months after facing a media storm for their refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding due to their Christian faith, husband and wife owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Ore., are now facing new attacks from gay advocates whom they say are determined to run them out of business.
> 
> When Melissa and Aaron Klein's stance on homosexuality was made public in February , the couple received a mixed bag of positive support and outrage.
> 
> ...



Gay Advocates Want to Shutter Christian Bakery That Refused to Make Wedding Cake for Lesbians


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> And here is the coup de grace:
> 
> From the Washington Times:
> 
> ...



Templar, there is nothing here but a few accusations from the bigot bakers. Why are you again pointing to this article from the bakers?  You are refusing to answer the questions and instead pointing to random accusations from the bakers about what one or two people did that hate the bakers. Why are you dodging the questions?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > By baking that cake for a gay couple you are expressing condonement for that type of behavior, thus making it sinful.
> ...



Yeah, it does. It is a violation of my conscience. The gay couple should have enough decency to respect my beliefs in the same way they would want me to respect theirs. They only wish this to be one sided. Utter submission, no questions asked. Serve us or be sued out of business. 

They are my friends because I am tolerant of their beliefs, they know full well I will never condone them. For it, they respect that, and we carry on a friendship regardless of what the PC crowd thinks. And no, I am working to disprove the notion that Christians are bigots. I am far from being a champion of homosexuality. Regardless of my views on homosexuality, I will never in my lifetime mistreat one. 

Yeah, I thought that'd ring a bell.  I know you are desperately trying to turn my argument on its head, but you can't. I doubt you can fathom how a Christian can get along with a homosexual. I bet you are raking that head of yours "THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!" It's simple, you ignore their infirmities. If it were so easy for a fiery soul like mine to forgive, then why couldn't one lone gay couple do the same?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > And here is the coup de grace:
> ...


The Coup de Grace is he used the Moonie Times.  LOL


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > And here is the coup de grace:
> ...



Are you refusing to acknowledge the validity of these articles? Are are you afraid that homosexuals are just as much bigoted as you claim these bakers are? I didn't dodge anything. You are the one refusing to acknowledge the article.

At any rate. I have sated my anger. Please feel free to argue with empty bandwidth.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7782744-post186.html


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



This is America and we have the freedom to say and believe what our conscience tells us. Get over yourself. There are other bakeries: ergo shop elsewhere, but your agenda is not about cake is it?


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 6, 2013)

Looks like the fundies  didn't think their business plan all the way through to the end


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Were the bakers "sued out of business?" Link?

Have you told your friends that you are only tolerant of their beliefs and that you do NOT condone their infirmities?  There is a big difference between not being gay, and merely tolerating their existence but despising them nonetheless for what they do.

Perhaps they are not your friends at all and are merely tolerating you.  Did you ever think of that?

How can you have a friend, yet not be a champion for your friend.  How does that even work?  What you are describing is a willful tolerance of a mortal enemy of you and your religion that you think should go to hell for their deeds if they do not repent in time.  To me, that is not a relationship between friends.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Do you see them in business? Case in point. My friend never asked me to champion his way of life, nor I of him.  Not all friendship is based on "what's in it for me?"


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Granting same sex marriage rights is bad law.  Giving gays protected class status is bad law.  When sexual orientation is added to the Laws on civil rights, it will also add child molestation (minor attracted persons) to the list.   

Why?    Because when a society starts on the road to depravity and perversion, it does not stop until it is totally destroyed.  Just like every other time.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Are you refusing to acknowledge the validity of these articles? Are are you afraid that homosexuals are just as much bigoted as you claim these bakers are? I didn't dodge anything. You are the one refusing to acknowledge the article.
> 
> At any rate. I have sated my anger. Please feel free to argue with empty bandwidth.


>>> Are you refusing to acknowledge the validity of these articles? 
No sir.  I'm simply reading the article, this is just another copy of the other one, in context.  The bakers made a few claims to a reporter that they are being harassed.  These accusations by the bakers have to be read in context.  Did they get some hate mail? Probably.  But I don't read that as every single customer of these bakers left because of the hate mail.  I read this as the bakers got some hate mail from a couple haters.  It happens to everyone that sticks their neck out. No one that runs a business is completely immune to hate mail.  The bakers went out of business because their bus. left them.  The harassment by a few people is not a reason to quit.  No money, is a reason to quit.

>>> Are are you afraid that homosexuals are just as much bigoted as you claim these bakers are?

There are bigoted ass holes in every group.  Gays, christians, bakers, ... no group is immune to inclusion of bigoted jerks.

>>> You are the one refusing to acknowledge the article.
Not true.  The point is you read the article as gospel.  I read the article, in context, as an accusation by a bigoted baker that he is being harassed.  I do not read that as the harassment this baker is receiving is indicative of a major problem with all gays and lesbians.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > As I said before simply baking a cake for someone in no way makes the baker liable for the sins of the customer.
> ...



They would not have been participating in the wedding they would have been baking a cake for which they would be compensated.

And let me get this straight, not being gay, not committing gay sex acts, and baking a cake for gay people is a sin?

Wow!

So in other words being tolerant of others is a sin.





> Yes, they would have to attend the wedding.




No they wouldn't have.

They did not have to attend the ceremony they did not have to attend the reception after.

All they had to do was deliver the cake to the reception hall and set it up before there were any gay people there.

As I said I have experience with delivering and setting up wedding cakes with my aunt and we never attended the ceremony or the reception.

The cake was delivered and set up hours beforehand



> Had they thought ahead and considered it more carefully, the baker might have agreed to bake the cake, but leave set up and construction of the tiers to the customer.   This same baker had baked cakes for this same customer before.  The customer ordered the cake, picked it up and took it to the birthday party.   Treat the wedding cake the same way.



How about you treat the customer the same way you would any other customer?

That's the real issue here.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I don't see how baking a cake can be against your beliefs if you are a baker.

After all that's all this guy had to do was bake a cake and get paid.

He didn't have to agree with the customer's life style all he had to do was treat the person as he would have treated anyone else.

But I guess that's too much to  ask.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




Please show me where anyone has ever defended child molestation in this or any other country in the last 500 years.  Perhaps you are projecting your perverted desires on others.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Your definition of "sued out of business" is whether of not a business remains open? Huh?

>>> Case in point. My friend never asked me to champion his way of life, nor I of him.  Not all friendship is based on "what's in it for me?"

You miss the point, you are not only not championing his way of life, you are ridiculing it, calling it a sickness, ...  See my reference to Archie Bunker... this is the same thing.  You are tolerating your friend and basically saying that you are doing your friend a favor by letting him have a heterosexual friend like yourself.   Your toleration while ridiculing and calling out your friend as going to hell makes you not just a bigot against your friend but also a bad friend.  Let go of your hate for gay behavior.  You don't have to participate if you don't want to.  They are not gonna force you to be gay, any more than they forced this baker out of business.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It was not an issue of baking a cake.  It was an issue of where the cake would be assembled.  Had the cake been assembled at the bakery and the customer picked it up there, there would have been no problem and I am 100% certain the baker would have cheerfully baked the cake.   But to assemble the cake at the reception place and thereby become part of the function itself was not within the scope of the baker's conscience.  Any more than he would have been comfortable assembling a cake at that KKK convention or at a function at the Westboro Baptist Church  or anything else that he could not support in good conscience.

He has the right to live his life and be master of his own convictions every bit as much as that gay couple does.

Those who think it is okay to destroy somebody financially purely because they hold a point of view you don't agree with is unAmerican, evil, and should never be condoned by anybody.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Ironically, paperview never linked me to where the bakers told this gay couple they were "abominations" or that "their money is not equal."


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Your definition of "sued out of business" is whether of not a business remains open? Huh?
> 
> ...


He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. 

They were not sued.  A complaint was filed.

In the same way someone would file a suit if the dude said sorry, we don;t serve Jews here. 

The owner said it had been in the works for a while now, *the mother of five* said she wanted to spend more time with her kids and that owning an open shop was very stressful.   Dad works another  40 hour job.  And they both said clearly the state had nothing to do with them deciding to work it from home.

The Portland food critic noted the shop had a lot of bad reviews for crappy tasting pastries. 

Free market.  It's a bitch.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

I'm still waiting....


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Your definition of "sued out of business" is whether of not a business remains open? Huh?
> ...



Free speech. It's a bitch.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Ironically, paperview never linked me to where the bakers told this gay couple they were "abominations" or that "their money is not equal."


It's in the original complaint.  Or didn't you read the story?

"The complaint says an owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa referred to a lesbian couple as "abominations unto the lord [sic].""We  were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiance reduced to  tears," the complaint reads. "This is absolutely unacceptable.""


Gresham bakery won't make cake for gay wedding - KPTV - FOX 12


That's the story from Feb.  There the owner says he denies making the statement.  Since then there have been reports he backtracked and didn't deny it.  I can't find the story now on that, and I'm not going to go hunting around for you.  If you want to stick with him denying it, fine.  I'll agree to that.


The complainants did make a statement under oath he said it. The Bureau of Labor is investigating. Since we know he denied them on account of sexual orientation -- that they agree they did, it's just a side point at this juncture.  We know he discriminated.  He admits to it. This violates Oregon law.



Klein did cite the Old Testament in one of his video's, and he has an internet  post from last year disparaging gays, so it's not very difficult to imagine he used the term abominations. If you want to call the lesbians liars, be my guest.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Ironically, paperview never linked me to where the bakers told this gay couple they were "abominations" or that "their money is not equal."
> ...



Now, find find video of Klien invoking the Old Testament, and the pdf of the complaint citing this, plus the internet post supposedly disparaging gays. Oh, and the reason I know that he did not physically say "your money isn't equal" is in the fact the couple got the implication of such, not that he ever uttered such a thing. Yes, nice way to spin it though. Score one for hyperbole.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Fuck off.  I'm not your monkey.

Do your own homework. I've already provided more than enough for your lazy ass.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



So are you saying what you said isn't true? Your reaction is telling. You can find those things or be deemed a liar and a disgrace to your cause.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Okay, I'll show you.

B4U-ACT.org: Seeking acceptance for "minor attracted person" and pedophiles | Washington Times Communities

B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them pedophiles, fiends, deviants, freaks, perverts, degenerates, predators or pedophiles, they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons.  (Daily Caller)  

The groups latest symposium Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies was held today, August 17, 2011, in Baltimore, Maryland

The point of this symposium is to promote tolerance and normalization.  The group hopes it will lead to eventual acceptance of their peculiar desires and behaviors. It opposes treatment to change feelings of attraction to children, arguing that, No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood. 


Read more: B4U-ACT.org: Seeking acceptance for "minor attracted person" and pedophiles | Washington Times Communities 
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists - The Periled Sea

A conference of mental health professionals is presenting a process whereby pedophiles will contribute to an effort to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in its 2013 revision -- the similar strategy employed several decades ago to normalize homosexual behavior. 

Normalizing Pedophilia | National Review Online

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls the sexual liberation discourse, which has existed since the 1970s. There are a lot of people, she says, who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps were wrong about paedophilia.

Conference aims to normalize pedophilia | The Daily Caller

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Associations bible of mental illnesses  the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013.  Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia

Your only excuse is you didn't know this was going on.  Now you know.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Just like I thought.


----------



## Esmeralda (Sep 6, 2013)

This thread is about gay marriage and prejudice against that. 

This thread is not about pedophilia. That is a completely different topic, and, as well, pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different things. Pedophiles are gay and straight; especially important to note is that not all gays are pedophiles anymore than all heterosexuals are pedophiles.

It's quite hilarious and also annoying how so many threads on this message board descend into completely off topic discussions or hissy fit arguments between two or three posters.

As far as the idea of normalizing pedophilia: it is a small group of people and psychiatrists, and also the Catholic Church has suggested it, that are in favor of such a thing. The vast majority of people, liberals and conservatives, and everyone in between, are not in favor of such a thing. 
__________________


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Negative, I don't count child molesters as people.  That is truly a sickness.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Sep 6, 2013)

It's very sad that love for degenerate homosexuals and their transgendered freaks have turned this ridiculous, terrorist nation into a political witch hunt that will someday lead to their incarceration. As it stands, a white Christian person is the only being not protected by federal law. I suppose they'll be wearing flair next.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.




You do realize that SOCON's frequently call for boycotts of businesses they perceive as "gay friendly" right?

The boycott is not just the tool of the liberals.



>>>>>


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.
> ...



Heck, I'd buy from a gay store owner anytime. But I'm not going to force my beliefs on him. Nor will I sic militant Christian or Christian activist groups on his business if he refuses to serve me. He has a living to make just as much as I would.  Gee, what a concept!


----------



## Vox (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Please show me where anyone has ever defended child molestation in this or any other country in the last 500 years.  Perhaps you are projecting your perverted desires on others.



thread next door - teachers defending their colleague and basically saying - he had a right to do it.
Oh, and it was a child rape.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Make up your mind.  Are you or are you not trying to force your belief on us that we should be intolerant of gays because of this incident where some gays supposedly ran this baker out of business.  Yes or no.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> This is America and we have the freedom to say and believe what our conscience tells us. Get over yourself.




I'm confused.  First you decry people for speaking out against the bakery's discrimination, not you post that Americaqn's are free to say and believe what our conscience tells us.


Does that not apply to the people that boycotted the bakery, posted about it online, and possibly demonstrated in front of the store.


(And no, personal treats are not covered as that is criminal activity.)



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




What you would do is irrelevant.  You attempted to disparage LGBT organizations for using a boycott, but hate to be the bearer of bad news, the use of boycotts to pressure businesses is old had practiced by SoCon's for years.

Did you have a problem when the AFA called for boycotts of 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl's Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Hardee's, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, and PepsiCo?


You realize that when boycotts are called for, even with major companies if sales is reduced people loose their jobs right?



>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

I still say that if we truly believe in freedom, liberty, and the American way, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and convictions about anything so long as they do not try to force thise opinions and convictions upon others.  Which is exactly what you do when you boycott this business for no other reason than you don't like what they think--you are forcing your opinions and convictions upon them.

You folks condoning the destruction of this "Christian" bakery would almost certainly be condemning a boycott of a gay business  or Muslim business or minority business that said they didn't condone Christianity or that spoke against traditional marriage or declined to provide services for that KKK convention or whatever.

We can't have it both ways without being totally hypocritical people.  Either a person has an unalienable right to their own beliefs and convictions or they don't.  And if it is okay to destroy a Christian business because they don't condone gay marriage, it logically follows that it is okay to destroy anybody who holds a belief or convictions that you don't share.  And we become Stalinist Russia or worse instead of America.

To destroy these people purely because they hold a conviction and belief that you consider bigoted is far more evil and sinister than any bigotry could ever be.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business.  It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

R.C. Christian said:


> It's very sad that love for degenerate homosexuals and their transgendered freaks have turned this ridiculous, terrorist nation into a political witch hunt that will someday lead to their incarceration. *As it stands, a white Christian person is the only being not protected by federal law.* I suppose they'll be wearing flair next.



As a matter of fact white christians are protected under anti-discrimination laws relating to race, ethnicity and religion.  Just because you're the group doing most of the discriminating against others and consequently rarely need or avail themselves of it does not change that you have that protection and it is available if necessary.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I still say that if we truly believe in freedom, liberty, and the American way, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and convictions about anything so long as they do not try to force thise opinions and convictions upon others.  Which is exactly what you do when you boycott this business for no other reason than you don't like what they think--you are forcing your opinions and convictions upon them.
> 
> You folks condoning the destruction of this "Christian" bakery would almost certainly be condemning a boycott of a gay business  or Muslim business or minority business that said they didn't condone Christianity or that spoke against traditional marriage or declined to provide services for that KKK convention or whatever.
> 
> ...


Yeah, why am I not surprised.  First you were for, FORCING, me to buy into your SS ponzi scheme.  Now you you are for, FORCING, me to buy cupcakes from homophobe bigots.  And forcing people to never protest against racism and bigotry because that would be anti-American.

WOW


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I still say that if we truly believe in freedom, liberty, and the American way, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and convictions about anything so long as they do not try to force thise opinions and convictions upon others.  Which is exactly what you do when you boycott this business for no other reason than you don't like what they think--you are forcing your opinions and convictions upon them.
> 
> You folks condoning the destruction of this "Christian" bakery would almost certainly be condemning a boycott of a gay business  or Muslim business or minority business that said they didn't condone Christianity or that spoke against traditional marriage or declined to provide services for that KKK convention or whatever.
> 
> ...



Of course you can have your own beliefs and convictions, you just can't put them in action through your business that serves the general public.

How hard is this to understand, really?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business.  It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.



Well the people applauding their demise are constantly using the phrase 'boycott' but you're right.  It wasn't a boycott, even though an organized boycott of a business, purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner, is evil.  Those condoning the demise of the business are condoning the most hateful rhetoric and threats and justify it because the owners of the business are bigots.

Well who isn't bigoted about somethng?  I daresay anybody who says he isn't is a liar.  And a free people are allowed to be as bigoted as they want to be with impunity.  The law says they are not allowed to impose their bigotry in a way that violates the unalienable rights of another.  And that is a just law.  But just to be bigoted?  That is also an unalienable right.

If people can be deliberately destroyed with impunity simply because they are politically incorrect, that is pure evil.  That does deny others their unalienable rights.  And this is no longer America.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business.  It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.



According to whom?


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 6, 2013)

Whoa Foxfyre, really? I have greater respect for Conservatives and Christians for being consistent in standards, but here you are mixing two things.

Nothing is wrong with boycotting or voting with dollars, that is free market choice.
I AGREE with you that attacking an anti-gay stance with the same vitriole opposed,
IS INDEED hypocritical.

But that is separate from deciding who you patronize with your dollars or your votes.

FF, it sounds like to me if BOTH parties were unforgiving and hostile to the other,
then they destroyed themselves equally. 

I've seen plenty of people on both sides not go that far, and manage to keep it within reason.

Please distinguish the real hating which I agree is hypocritical, from people who
have the right to refrain in civilized ways.

Again I totally AGREE it is wrong to wreak destruction on others, and find that
is equally self-destructive.  So FF when you go overboard, you destroy your
credibility also, when actually there is a good point underneath that.

I agree it makes no sense to exclude anti-gay views.
Just don't go so overly ballistic that you make the same mistake as both sides already do when they go overboard as well.  Let's just allow people to separate out and not
force either one on the other. Isn't that the best way to avoid all this harassing conflict???

======================================================


RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I still say that if we truly believe in freedom, liberty, and the American way, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and convictions about anything so long as they do not try to force thise opinions and convictions upon others.  Which is exactly what you do when you boycott this business for no other reason than you don't like what they think--you are forcing your opinions and convictions upon them.
> ...



I'd ask to let her finish venting and grieving.
I don't blame pro-gay people for going overboard with their grief.
So of course, that's only fair to the other side to let them do the same back.
After that, maybe we can find ways to work more reasonably, but not when
people are screaming in anger and fed up in grief! Let them grieve!


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business.  It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.
> ...



1. Whoa Whoa Whoa
So condoning an action is supporting/condoning the beliefs that went into it?

So if we condone American businesses that depend on slave labor in India/China,
does that mean we agree with human rights abuses???

??? x ??? x ???

FF, just because we forgive and accept some things does not mean we agree or approve.

2. And what you say about the right to be bigots.
OK so why can't the boycotters be bigots too?
What are you saying here?

A. I agree that responding to verbal or ideological conflicts
with "physical harassment and damage" is disproportionate and wrong

B. but it is fine for the owner to have their views, bigoted or not,
and for the boycotters to have their, bigoted or not

Can we agree where the actions went too far is when
people started physically harassing and abusing each other?

But you seem to agree yourself, that the bigotry is tolerable
as given, whether or not we agree with it, people have that anyway.

Don't we agree here, more than we disagree?

I think you are just outraged as the next person
when people only see one side and not the other.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

"The Kleins say they&#8217;re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash."

Funny, the Kleins seem to disagree with you.  Are you channeling?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

>


Interesting.  I never heard that boycotts were "evil" during all the years the AFA was calling for all types of boycotts for gay friendly businesses.

Now that a boycott has occurred supporting a gay couple, suddenly it's "evil".



Wow how time change.



>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business.  It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.
> ...



Boycotts don't work.  If there isn't some level of violence a mere boycott will fail.  The gay boycott of Chick Fil A failed.  The boycott of JC Penney failed (although Penneys is still going to go under.

This is no longer America.  That you have right.  

Christians will just have to get used to having two businesses.   One open to the public and another one that doesn't advertise and isn't open to the public.

Have you ever gone to San Francisco?   In China town the bigger restaurants have two dining rooms.   One that anyone can go into and one in the back for Chinese people only.   The menu is in Chinese and it's entirely different from the Americanized Chinese food in the main dining room.   That's the way Christians will have to learn to operate.   Like the bakery and photographer I posted before.  Hidden services.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> I still say that if we truly believe in freedom, liberty, and the American way, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and convictions about anything so long as they do not try to force thise opinions and convictions upon others.  Which is exactly what you do *when you boycott this business for no other reason than you don't like what they think--you are forcing your opinions and convictions upon them.*
> 
> You folks condoning the destruction of this "Christian" bakery would almost certainly be condemning a boycott of a gay business  or Muslim business or minority business that said they didn't condone Christianity or that spoke against traditional marriage or declined to provide services for that KKK convention or whatever.
> 
> ...



No you are not.   You are choosing to not shop there.   I'd hate to think you believe people should be forced to shop where they don't want to.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business.  It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.



Not according to them.   Or are they lying?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business.  It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.
> ...



It was a boycott.  Nobody boycotted "purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner", they boycotted because the owners took it that extra step of physically denying service to customers for no other reason then they were homos.

Nobody is endorsing hateful rhetoric and threats (if indeed they did happen), you just made that up because you're  argument is weak and you needed some sensationalizing to breath some life into it.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



This makes no sense at all.  Are you suggesting in the future a christian bakery such as this one will have a back room for christians only that will be filled with talking snakes along with cakes?  The homos still get their cakes out front though so i don't know what the purpose of the backroom would be.  Flagellation and bloodletting?  Child molestation?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again.  Not even a sugar cookie.

They will have to find another bakery, just as they would have had to do to bake their cake.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again.  Not even a sugar cookie.
> 
> They will have to find another bakery, just as they would have had to do to bake their cake.



Only because the bakery is closed.  Had they continued to visit the bakery as it once existed, I am confident they would continue to be treated as any other customer as they already were.  It was not THEM that the bakers objected to but the bakers did not want to be part of a same sex marriage which they did not condone.  If the hatemongers who went after those bakers, tooth and nail, had any integrity, they would track down every single Californian (or in any other state) who voted against same sex marriage and subject them to the same vile treatment.

What happened to the bakery owners is evil.  It should never happen in a free America.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I have never tried to force my beliefs on anyone. And it is not my place to tell you what you should believe. It is arrogant presumption to think I have such a power. No.
I am merely stating my opinion. As I said before, you have an issue with me stating it. Perhaps you should, perhaps you shouldn't. But as for myself I condemn it. And I would condemn it if the roles were reversed. There is no place in this universe or the next for that type of behavior.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Bingo.

BTW: Welcome to the forum Alfalfa.

Great to see you here!


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a convicton you don't share is evil.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again.  Not even a sugar cookie.
> ...



This isn't a free America!   That much should be evident.  The bakery will go on, it will get a different business model, the owners, no matter how much the gays wished it, are not dead.  They will succeed in a different way.   They just won't be advertising wedding cakes any more.   They might end up more successful than they were.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 6, 2013)

Dear Foxfyre: I admire your convictions in standing up against something you know to be wrong. It is equally wrong to shut down a gay business for being gay as a Christian anti-gay business for defending their beliefs also. I agree this is terribly wrong and hurtful, and against
the equal inclusion and tolerance we Americans pride ourselves on. We are going through a difficult learning curve and tend to go off the road when we fight to be in charge of driving.

You inspire me, Foxfyre, why not you and me start a Kickstarter or CrowdRise fundraiser for this business to "give away" free cakes to all couples who ask provided they go through spiritual healing which has been known to heal homosexuality that is caused by abuse.
If people are naturally homosexual, the healing helps them to be even less affected by negativity because it strengthens their ability to forgive. So it causes no harm to either case of orientation, natural or unnatural. But for unnatural conditions, the spiritual healing rids people of the conflicts that otherwise create these other problems.

So this will help promote the true, free and effective methods of healing that HAVE healed homosexuality, and prevent this type of forgiveness therapy from being censored along with the hurtful fraudulent types of false faith healing or false conversion therapy causing so much damage that even Christian leaders like Christie called for it to be banned!

Please consider channeling your anger at such injustice toward a remedy.

If you like this idea, I think I know 2 people in baking, one who is a young conservative small business entrepreneur. And we can start a service to provide free cakes to businesses facing this issue. The donees just need to ask in time to order these special.
And will receive free books on spiritual healing of homosexuality or whatever Christians want to donate with each order.

There is a way to turn lemons into lemonade.

Please consider this and let me know how I can help that business or other
to find a positive solution that doesnt harm anyone but spreads charity and faith
in forgiveness to correct all wrongs.

Yours truly,
Emily

Some resources I refer:
http://www.christinhealingmin.org
Dr. MacNutt wrote a concise book on tolerating
homosexuality while healing cases caused by abuse.
This is inexpensive enough, maybe we can ask large ministries
to donate copies and cakes to give out every time a gay couple
requests a member bakery to order and deliver a cake for them!


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again.  Not even a sugar cookie.
> 
> They will have to find another bakery, just as they would have had to do to bake their cake.



Except this "new" bakery will think twice about refusing them service based on their sexual orientation.

Oh snap.  See how that works?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again.  Not even a sugar cookie.
> ...



I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the christian difference of selling them a cake for a celebration and selling them some baked goods they're just going to rub all over their bodies and eat off each other with chop stix.

BTW - What happened to the bakery owners was natural selection.

Heheh...


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Are you the Paperview I've seen on other sites?


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again.  Not even a sugar cookie.
> ...



Or better yet, add more to their services provided.

If the couple asks them to go to their gay wedding to deliver it,
the business can ask them to let their prayer teams pray with them for healing
in order to receive a free cake, as part of their charity outreach.

If the couple passes on that, and just wants the free cake,
the business can still give them a free copy of the book
"Can Homosexuality be Healed" explaining the difference
between natural and unnatural cases of homosexuality,
and which cases can be healed by spiritual forgiveness therapy and deliverance.

They don't have to read it, if the business doesn't have to go to their wedding.

[and about the cost of giving away free cakes to couples they cannot do business
with but are not restricted from providing charity, for each request, the business
will distribute that to all sponsors of the program in order to solicit donations or
cakes to give to these couples. So as long as they are willing to have their
names distributed as charitable recipients, they can order their free cakes.
See how that works???]


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself. You people are so incredibly simple minded that you can't see that. Making that bakery go to the gay wedding would be like me making you sleep with a straight person. A crude analogy perhaps, but you simply don't understand when you so easily deny someone their conscience.


----------



## bendog (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Yeah, that's the pt.  You cannot logically disagree with a boycott, regardless of how you feel about this issue or any other issue.  If a store sells playboy, for example, people can boycott.  If a store actively says they welcome GLBT, people can boycott.  Everyone has free speech and right to patronize whomever they wish.

Personally, I find the state anti-discrimination laws to be more govt than i wish.  However, I also think Lester Maddux had a right to choose not to serve African Americans, even though I personnally would never buy anything from such a person.  However, state anti-discrimination laws are the law, and my personal opinion is irrelevant, except to disinguish the laws effect on christian bakers from the boycott's effect.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


PF.com

Yep.  I sent you some rep on your third post and noted it.  Turn on your alerts. 

Like I said, great to see you here.  Guys, Alfalfa is a first rate poster.  He will truly be an asset to the board.


----------



## bendog (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself. You people are so incredibly simple minded that you can't see that. Making that bakery go to the gay wedding would be like me making you sleep with a straight person. A crude analogy perhaps, but you simply don't understand when you so easily deny someone their conscience.



No what you don't understand is the people who boycotted had no issue with the bakers RIGHT to not serve them, even by going to their wedding.  However, they chose to subject the baker to econ consequences for the baker's action in denying them catering.  The baker can't have his cake and eat it too.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself.
> ...


No it wasn't.  They have pick up service. 

You're still just making things up.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Seriously?  This makes sense to you?  Do you know how much a wedding cake costs?  Have you ever been married?  Have you ever been with another woman?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself. You people are so incredibly simple minded that you can't see that. Making that bakery go to the gay wedding would be like me making you sleep with a straight person. A crude analogy perhaps, but you simply don't understand when you so easily deny someone their conscience.
> ...



Sounds more like spite and revenge to me.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself.
> ...



Do you really think that couple could have delivered a multi-tiered cake to their own wedding? Are you stupid?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I think many people have greater understanding than you think and are less simple than you believe.

So let me ask YOU, you do UNDERSTAND the bakers weren't going to the wedding ceremony, they were going to reception location.  So what difference did it make if they assembled the cake at the shop and had the homos pick it up or delivered it to the reception and charged and extra $50?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


You have no fucking idea what cake they were going to order.

They never even got to that point.  The owner  stated plainly he would not bake a cake for the wedding, and told other gay couples in the past he would not as well.

On their website they have all variety of cakes for weddings and they note the pick up option.  They  charge a dollar mile to deliver it. 

I was at a wedding a few months ago.  No delivery.  Picked up.  People do that, you know. 

Admit you are talking out of your ass.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Precisely my point. Not only does it cost an arm and a leg, you need a few arms and legs to deliver it on site. Are you gonna trust a customer to transport something that expensive on their own? I'm sure they had a delivery service as well. The point here is, given that delivering the cake to the wedding would be the only logical option, do you really sincerely believe that this couple would violate their conscience by rendering aid to something they deemed as sinful?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Good to see you here, looks like you've been around for a while...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 6, 2013)

I'm not sure why everyone is trying to find a better solution to this problem with the baker. It seems to me that the best solution is the one that was implemented. He is out of business, because nobody wants to buy his fucking cakes.....


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You are not condoning anything you are getting paid to make a cake 

By your logic if being gay is a sin and the baker baked anything for gay people is he not condoning their life style and therefore committing a sin?



> Being free of "religious dogma" only allows you to treat others with impunity. This is what I mean by bigotry and intolerance. You folks are all the same, each and every time I encounter you, it's the same old line.



I do give people exemption.  If what they do harms no one else why shouldn't I?

I'm sorry but no amount of religious dogma can explain how making birthday cakes for gay people is not a sin but making a wedding cake is.

And I'll ask again what if 2 atheists wanted a wedding cake?  Would they be turned down since their marriage would not be sanctioned by the church therefore they would be sinning and by making a cake for sinners the baker is also sinning?

See how utterly ridiculous that argument is yet?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Spite and revenge is best served with a little cake...


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Dude, have you ever been married?  Have you ever been with a woman?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Fair enough.  And I suppose you are arguing that said condemnation should be done completely in private to respect the beliefs of others?  But not in this case, we get a pass on this forum?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



In an empty reception hall? 



> Had the cake been assembled at the bakery and the customer picked it up there, there would have been no problem and I am 100% certain the baker would have cheerfully baked the cake.



I'm not.  



> But to assemble the cake at the reception place and thereby become part of the function itself was not within the scope of the baker's conscience.  Any more than he would have been comfortable assembling a cake at that KKK convention or at a function at the Westboro Baptist Church  or anything else that he could not support in good conscience.



Setting up a cake hours before a function is not being part of the function.  It's no different than if his business was a cleaning business and he was hired to clean the reception hall before the gay people showed up.



> He has the right to live his life and be master of his own convictions every bit as much as that gay couple does.



And he has to live with the consequences of those convictions.  Something you don't seem to want to acknowledge.



> Those who think it is okay to destroy somebody financially purely because they hold a point of view you don't agree with is unAmerican, evil, and should never be condoned by anybody.



Actually exercising one's rights in the free market is very American.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Actually, I've been to a few weddings myself. Traditionally they feature mult-layered cakes. So no, I don't talk out of my ass unlike *some* people do, I use common sense. I was at a wedding as recently as 2011. Guess what? The cake had been pre-baked and and delivered on-site. They were assembling it before my very eyes. You have no fucking idea to what lengths people will go to for a wedding ceremony. 

Even so, given that they never got to that point, it puzzles me why, given that we live in the information age...

Why didn't the gay couple even notice that the bakery was Christian oriented? You don't simply forget something like that. They had a Bible verse posted right smack on their website.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16

You as a homosexual don't simply go over to a Christian oriented bakery and ask them to make a cake for you, knowing that they may reject you in favor of their beliefs. There was an ulterior motive behind this.  They knew these people were Christians and they KNEW that they would most likely not approve of their lifestyle, yet they STILL went, they must have known that they would stir up a political firestorm if they were denied service. 

Now who and blue bloody blazes would do something like that?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again.  Not even a sugar cookie.
> ...



The old bakery never refused them service based on their sexual orientation.  In fact, this couple were bakery regulars and had this same bakery bake birthday cakes for them.   They just couldn't force the bakery to participate in their same sex wedding.  They just won't be able to get anything else that they used to get from this bakery.   I hope they didn't have any favorites.

Oh snap.  See how that works?  

There might be other bakeries rethinking the issue and tell couples "Sorry, we don't offer wedding cake services any more".   But they will do a favor for a fellow parishioner.

Oh snap.  See how that works?

I know.  I did it.  I did it two years ago.  Before it became popular.

Snappy snappy.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Actually exercising one's rights in the free market is very American.



What about one's freedom of speech? Or of religion?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> *...do you really sincerely believe that this couple would violate their  conscience by rendering aid to something they deemed as sinful?*


Seems you missed this:

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter



> Quote:
> "I  was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a  researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem  cells, so I thought Id get her two identical cakesbasically, two  little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked  an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.
> 
> Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? Itll be $25.99 each, so  about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to  The Willamette Week.
> ...



Their "Christian" beliefs violatin' seems to be cafeteria style.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



And the next person could just as easily say that it is ridiculous that you can't see the difference between a birthday cake--all people of all definitions have birthdays every year--and a wedding cake that has to be assembled on location.

And in the end it doesn't matter.  If we truly believe in the unalienable right to hold our own convictions, beliefs, and attitudes with impunity no matter who doesn't agree with us, then the bakers are entitled to the same unalienable right.

Unless you think you should be forced to park your truck at the location and be seen carrying a cake into a KKK convention hall and thereby be perceived as condoning that convention, you should be able to understand why a person who does not condone gay marriage should not be forced to participate in that.

To destroy these people purely because you don't share their beliefs and convictions is pure evil.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...


Make cake
Not hate.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



So setting up a cake hours beforehand in a nearly empty reception hall is a sin too?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Individual said:


> Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> Essentially the government is allowing persons who have different, and perhaps higher moral standards, to be discriminated against and even threatened physically.
> The practical solution to the disagreement should have been for the couple to seek the services desired from another bakery in the competitive marketplace.
> The Kleins, in my opinion, have legal grounds to seek and receive damages as a result of the actions taken against them in exercising their 1st Amendment right.



While I agree with you in that this should not have happened and I think the gay community sucks for doing this to people who did nothing to them at all, remember the homosexual couple came to them not the other way around, I do not think the government has a role to play in this at all, as long as there have been no physical assaults, since this is just a form of boycott.  Truthfully, it is no different than the techniques used by the pro-life movement against abortion mills.

Immie


----------



## bendog (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Not spite and revenge, but rather a will to alter a behavior the boycotting people found as equally objectionable as the baker found gay marriage.  Those supporting the baker's actions will say, "ah, but the baker did not say the gays couldn't get married; the baker only said 'not with my catered cake.'"

However, the boycotters didn't say the baker couldn't withold his catered cake, they merely said "you may do so, but we and all others, who find your witholding to be obnoxious bigotry based upon religious intolerance, say 'not with our money.'"

The simple fact was there aren't enough bigots with views based upon religious intolerance to keep the baker in biz.  Lester Maddux would ultimately have suffered the same econ fate.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Who said it was empty? Who says it has to be empty? Merely enabling or supporting it is sinful, you dolt.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



But if being gay is a sin then any interaction with gay people is a sin, right?  I mean if two gay people or two straight people are living together without being married and you bake them a house warming cake are you sinning?

Or is it only wedding cakes that are a sin?

It's ridiculous.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



It's really not that hard to put a wedding cake together


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

And for people reading this thread, if any, it appears the debate has moved to whether it was more christian and moral to sell these homos a cake for their wedding and then make them pick up or for them to deliver it to the reception hall long before anyone was due to be there and make an extra $50.

Seriously, this is the banality to which christian theology has sunk.  "I'm going to heaven if I bake, take their money and make them pick it up but I go straight to hell (do not pass go...) if I put it in my car and deliver it to them for an extra $50.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > *...do you really sincerely believe that this couple would violate their  conscience by rendering aid to something they deemed as sinful?*
> ...



Given that you got that from none other than the Huffington Post, it immediately discredits your argument.  Did you have any proof to substantiate this claim? Of course not.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Individual said:
> 
> 
> > Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> ...


The owner denied them service based on their sexual orientation and called them "abominations."

The former is against the law.  The latter is just being an asshole.

If the people in Oregon don't like the LAW, change it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Actually exercising one's rights in the free market is very American.
> ...



Did anyone stop the baker from practicing his religion or from speaking his mind?

No.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



What, have you ever tried? That's hilarious!


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




Did the xtians have a big talking snake sign out front?

Seriously, the opposition is now reduced to blaming it on the homos because they should have known the bakery was owned by snake handling fundies and therefore know they were going to get shafted up the butt and therefore it was their fault for not avoiding the lynching.

Really, they should have known!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yeah.

If you haven't noticed, they were sued, harassed, threatened, accosted and finally they had to move their business to their home. 

Your paper friend just now said "make cake, not hate" so why was so much hate directed at that bakery? 

I didn't think so.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > No.  People economizing on their wedding can choose to pick it up and save the delivery charge.  Each tier comes in it's own box, when you get to the reception you stick the pylons on the big one, set the next tier on top then put the Steve and mark figurines on top.  This task is usually relegated to the mother in law or a sister of the bride.
> ...


Well lookie there.  He's threatening to neg rep a newbie here, just because he disagrees with him. 

My hip-hip-hypocrisy from Tempy boy.

Hey folks.  A little pos rep for the great new poster Alfalfa.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> I'd ask to let her finish venting and grieving.
> I don't blame pro-gay people for going overboard with their grief.
> So of course, that's only fair to the other side to let them do the same back.
> After that, maybe we can find ways to work more reasonably, but not when
> people are screaming in anger and fed up in grief! Let them grieve!


Fair enough.  We all need to vent


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



So all those people who tend the hall, clean thew floors, mow the lawn, shovel snow are all sinners because a wedding reception for a gay couple was held there?

And you wonder why people think it's ridiculous?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yeah, it's called the internet you neanderthal.

Home - Sweet Cakes

So. Whats that about them "not knowing"? It's right under the phone number. Geez. You people really are malinformed, aren't you?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Were probably not employees of that bakery. So that is irrelevant. So nice of you to move the goalpoasts.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Evidently practicing their religion includes symbolically dragging homos behind their Chevy's.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> And for people reading this thread, if any, it appears the debate has moved to whether it was more christian and moral to sell these homos a cake for their wedding and then make them pick up or for them to deliver it to the reception hall long before anyone was due to be there and make an extra $50.
> 
> Seriously, this is the banality to which christian theology has sunk.  "I'm going to heaven if I bake, take their money and make them pick it up but I go straight to hell (do not pass go...) if I put it in my car and deliver it to them for an extra $50.




Looks like the Temp boy is taking out his anger on you by negging you because you disagree with him. 

How _Christian_ of him.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I hereby christen you a board troll. You'd love nothing more than to drag a Christian behind your Prius.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Were they prevented from practicing their religion?

No

Were they prevented from exercising their first amendment rights 

No.

People won't tolerate bigots anymore.

As I said times have changed.  Society has changed.

Business must adapt or die.

Your baker didn't adapt so his business died.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 6, 2013)

Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

You have the title of your OP all wrong.  These two bakers were interviewed on the news and they stated that rather than to be forced into doing something that they felt was morally wrong, they decided on their own to close the bakery and run it from their home as they had done for years before they rented the building for the bakery.  She said they weren't forced into anything.  By running the bakery from her home she could be more selective in whom she chose to bake for.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > *...do you really sincerely believe that this couple would violate their  conscience by rendering aid to something they deemed as sinful?*
> ...



Of course not.  They bake a cake, someone picks it up.  They don't require the participation of the baker to attend the venue.   Wedding cakes require the participation of the baker to go to the location and set up a tiered cake.

How come a brave baker was congratulated on refusing to bake a birthday cake for a child named Adolph Hitler?

Stupid Idiots Name Son Adolph Hitler, Bakery Refuses To Make Birthday Cake For The Young Terrorist. Sadly, It Gets Even Worse | Geekologie

Why should this bakery be right, and the other bakery be wrong?   It's a child's birthday cake!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > And for people reading this thread, if any, it appears the debate has moved to whether it was more christian and moral to sell these homos a cake for their wedding and then make them pick up or for them to deliver it to the reception hall long before anyone was due to be there and make an extra $50.
> ...



Making fun of my faith? How _tolerant_ of you.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You said merely enabling a gay wedding is a sin.

I asked a perfectly reasonable question related to the topic.

So humor me and answer the question.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I can tell you that it doesn't matter what is and what is not sin.

What matters is that each of us who believe in unalienable rights is entitled to define for ourselves what is and what is not sin.  What is and is not to be condoned.   If we are truly free, we can hold whatever beliefs, convictions, principles, ideals, hopes, dreams, or concepts we hold with impunity, whether anybody else shares them or not.

If it is okay for you to destroy a Christian couple's reputation and livelihood because they do not condone gay marriage, why would it not be okay for them to destroy your reputation and livelihood because you do?   Or for any other conviction or belief you hold that they don't share?

We cannot be free if we do not allow others to be as free.  To destroy a person's livelihood purely because you disagree with their beliefs or convictions on something is pure evil.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



They're all going to hell and they deserve it because they should have known homos might book the reception hall.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > And for people reading this thread, if any, it appears the debate has moved to whether it was more christian and moral to sell these homos a cake for their wedding and then make them pick up or for them to deliver it to the reception hall long before anyone was due to be there and make an extra $50.
> ...



What's a neg?  Does it hurt?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I see it as no different if they had said they won't serve Black people.

And I agree they had the right to refuse but now they have to live with the consequences of that decision.

And the consequences for bigotry in today's society are severe.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Ahh, well.  I come from a devout Irish Catholic family, 9 years of Catholic School, first communion, confirmation, altar boy (no buggering), the whole nine yards.

I'm saved and devout christians worst nightmare, I know where all the bodies are buried...and I EARNED my right to be critic.

And BTW, I drive a 500SL and i'm a conservative...just not a jebus genuflecting conservative.

Yes, I even spelled genuflecting correctly without the spell check.  That ought to scare you a little....heheh....


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I get a warm feeling in side when I think about destroying Obama's ability to burn my country to the ground.  Call me a bigot against socialism, if you will. 

To this OP, there is no harm in refusing to buy products from a vendor because the vendor is a bigot.  However, there is harm in the vendor violating civil rights of a member of the public.  

Your assumption that people owe this bigot a living because the bigot happens to be a christian bigot, is over the top.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


Your faith says you have to neg rep posters who disagree with you?

Geeze.  The guy has been here one day, and you welcome him like that?

Today was my first interaction with you, and you neg repped me earlier because I pointed out your hypocrisy after you were so "deeply offended" by a satirical  video about traditional marriage. 

Is that how your faith works?  Use your rep button to insult new people you chat with on message boards?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> It's their own fault. People have the right to refuse to buy from them, which they did, and they are complaining about it?
> Get over it. Your business closed its doors because of your backward opinions, and that vile Facebook post didn't help matters.



Businesses also have the right not to sell to whom ever they do not wish to do business with.  Get over it.

As for the "Facebook page" I suspect that was not posted by them.  I would guess the picture was photoshopped or some other Internet trick.  But, no one will convince the haters on this site that everyone is not just like them.

Immie


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



1. By shaming them back into their home, they prevented them from perhaps spreading the gospel to unbelievers. Those lesbians knew from the moment they went there that they planned to stir up controversy. Thereby telling the world, Christians are bigots! Seriously? Is it wrong to stand up for your beliefs? If anything they were prevented from standing up for their beliefs.

2. Yep. Free enterprise entails running your business in a way you see fit, with whatever themes and undertones you wish. That is called expression, and when you drop the weight of militant gay rights and activists on top of them to make them conform to societal norms, you have essentially denied them their First Amendment right to free expression.

3. Why must people of faith conform and adapt to service ways and people that they don't agree with? Like I told someone else earlier, if you are gay, you wouldn't approve too much of being forced to marry a straight person of the opposite sex, now would you??


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


See the red under your join date?  

Temp dude here is trying to dig your reputation points even as he scream "Free Speech!" and tells us how Jesusy Christian-like people like him are.  Or should be.  Or something like that.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Bigots are not a protected class.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

If the vendor was being wronged by these groups, such as by being slandered, then the vendor may sue the groups and recoup his losses.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Big Black Dog said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop
> 
> You have the title of your OP all wrong.  These two bakers were interviewed on the news and they stated that rather than to be forced into doing something that they felt was morally wrong, they decided on their own to close the bakery and run it from their home as they had done for years before they rented the building for the bakery.  She said they weren't forced into anything.  By running the bakery from her home she could be more selective in whom she chose to bake for.



Beauregard Bakery in San Francisco just did the same thing.  Without having to go through the controversy step.


----------



## waltky (Sep 6, 2013)

How `bout dat?...

... I went to school with Christian Baker...

... always wondered what ever happened to the guy.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



No they didn't.  they can knock on every door in town and tell people how it's a sin to be gay if they want.



> Those lesbians knew from the moment they went there that they planned to stir up controversy. Thereby telling the world, Christians are bigots! Seriously? Is it wrong to stand up for your beliefs? If anything they were prevented from standing up for their beliefs.



From what I've read those gay people were regular customers and the baker never thought it was a sin to bake any other kind of cake for them.


> 2. Yep. Free enterprise entails running your business in a way you see fit, with whatever themes and undertones you wish. That is called expression, and when you drop the weight of militant gay rights and activists on top of them to make them conform to societal norms, you have essentially denied them their First Amendment right to free expression.



No again. No one is preventing them from baking and expressing themselves.  they just refuse to patronize their business.  tell me if you stop frequenting a business because they treated you poorly and you dissuaded your friends and family from going there or you put a negative review on Yelp are you violating the first amendment rights of the owners of that business?

Of course not.



> 3. Why must people of faith conform and adapt to service ways and people that they don't agree with? Like I told someone else earlier, if you are gay, you wouldn't approve too much of being forced to marry a straight person of the opposite sex, now would you??



So baking a cake is tantamount to being forced into a gay marriage?

All he was asked to do was bake a cake.  It's not any more complicated than that.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Read my sig. It is an open warning to anyone. If you don't like it, that's not my problem. What are you, scared? 

Your rank insensitivity toward people of my faith is what got you negged. You folks know there are people of faith on this board who would most likely be offended by it. This isn't some gay bar where you can tell these kinds of jokes in secret, other people see it. Say what you want, but if you are going to purposefully provoke people for their beliefs, and then post videos about it, you will get negged each and every time I'm allowed to. I will not let that stand. Got it? It is purely uncalled for what you do, and what the gay community did to these bakers.

Keep your tolerance liberal. You have none to spare. Save your equality, because nobody but your own will be on equal footing with you.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Wrong.  They did NOT refuse to serve gay people.  They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone.  They don't refuse to serve black people.  But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.

And if you think it is okay to destroy somebody's livelihood for what YOU define as bigotry, then it is okay if they destroy your livelihood for what THEY define as bigotry?

If holding unpopular beliefs is justification for having one's business destroyed due to the bigotry of others, then we have no freedom left in America.   Because to condemn and intentionally destroy people for what they believe is the worst form of bigotry.

And freedom loving people will condemn it every time because it is pure evil.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

*There is no civil right to the labor of another person.*  That's a reinvention of slavery.   The bakery advertised wedding cakes.  By making an offer for service to the public, under public accommodation laws (not civil rights laws) the bakery was obligated to fulfill the offer.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make

Didn't even bother to see it was from a story from the LOCAL  Portland paper, did you?

lol.  You cite the Moonie Times as Gospel, but the local newspaper reporter in Portland, naw...gotta be lyin'.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> 1. By shaming them back into their home, they prevented them from perhaps spreading the gospel to unbelievers. Those lesbians knew from the moment they went there that they planned to stir up controversy. Thereby telling the world, Christians are bigots! Seriously? Is it wrong to stand up for your beliefs? If anything they were prevented from standing up for their beliefs.
> 
> 2. Yep. Free enterprise entails running your business in a way you see fit, with whatever themes and undertones you wish. That is called expression, and when you drop the weight of militant gay rights and activists on top of them to make them conform to societal norms, you have essentially denied them their First Amendment right to free expression.
> 
> 3. Why must people of faith conform and adapt to service ways and people that they don't agree with? Like I told someone else earlier, if you are gay, you wouldn't approve too much of being forced to marry a straight person of the opposite sex, now would you??



They can still preach their hate from their home.  No one is stopping them.  I hope the lesbians did do it on purpose.  Root out the cancer clusters and expose them.  There are plenty of Christians that are really Christians.  One of the things the bible says is not to judge others.  If you disagree with what someone does in their bedroom stay out of it and then your problem is solved.

If you see fit to discriminate with your business then people are free to sabotage your business.  It works both ways. If they took the couples money then they should have given them the same service they would give anyone else.

People of faith must conform to their society if they wish to profit off that society. Getting married is a personal choice.  Running a business for public consumption renders you open to public decisions.  If you want to make a statement put up signs in your business that say Gay people are not welcome.  We will all laugh as we watch you go out of business.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Justifying what was done to this couple would also justify Christians boycotting and picketing any gay owned business they choose.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



But you use Huffington Post as a source? And you lecture me about mine? I despise intellectual dishonesty. Yours is of the worst kind. Where on their site do they volunteer to do parties for pagan rituals and satanic ceremonies?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Wrong.  They did NOT refuse to serve gay people.  They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone.  They don't refuse to serve black people.  But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.
> ...


Where the hell do you guys keep coming up with this?  They HAD to deliver?

You guys are flying off your pants now making shit up.  Stop it.

The owner didn't even let them get that far.  You have NO WAY to know if they even intended to pick it up or not.

The minute they told them it was for a same sex wedding, the bakers said they wouldn't do it, and the "abominations" spewed forth.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> ]
> Wrong.  They did NOT refuse to serve gay people.  They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone.  They don't refuse to serve black people.  But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.



Wow fox, cause gay weddings are the same as black voodoo ceremonies and black satanic festivals.

I know your are from that "prior" generation and all. News flash the world has moved beyond the ignorant belief that blacks are all devil worshipers who practice voodoo and gays all want to rape little boys.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Wow.  You don't even read the story, and you complain about intellectual dishonesty. 

For bonus points, you make a claim I, nor the newspaper reporter never made.  How's that for intellectual honesty?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > ]
> ...



And again you refuse to read what is written or honestly respond to the point which goes flying right over your head. . . .

I'm not even going to try to respond to that.  You are simply too dishonest in your debate tactics to waste my time on. . . .sorry.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  They did NOT refuse to serve gay people.  They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone.  They don't refuse to serve black people.  But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.
> ...



Apparently you missed this:

From The Blaze:



> In February, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an Oregon-based bakery, found themselves at the center of a media firestorm after refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couples ceremony. Nearly four months later, the small business continues to receive threatening and harassing phone calls and e-mails, as they grapple with the ongoing fall-out from their controversial decision. This week, they spoke with TheBlaze about the ongoing drama.
> 
> It was Jan. 17 when a mother and her daughter showed up at the shop and chatted with Aaron about purchasing a cake; their meeting was short-lived, though. *Upon learning that the wedding was for two women, the baker purportedly politely declined service to the women, citing his Christian faith. Aaron apologized, but stayed true to his values.
> 
> ...



?Stupid Bible-Thumping?B**ch?: Bakery That Refused to Make Gay Couple?s Wedding Cake Speaks Out Amid Threats, Economic Woes | TheBlaze.com


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yeah cause Christians picketing gays because the gays refuse to buy from people who won't serve gays at gay weddings is the same as gays picketing Christians because the Christians won't serve at gay weddings.  



Let me guess you are one of those people that believe guns kill people.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  They did NOT refuse to serve gay people.  They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone.  They don't refuse to serve black people.  But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.
> ...



No one picks up a tiered wedding cake.  It has to be assembled on site.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Show me any cake mentioned in the linked article that had to be assembled at the customer location or even delivered to the customer location, and you might have a point.

Show me any evidence that the gay couple was ever refused an order that they could pick up at the bakery.  That they were EVER refused an order at the bakery which apparently they went to regularly for products.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes.  And having helped do a multi-tiered wedding cake as a favor for a cash strapped friend once, it is an intricate and time consuming process requiring considerable skill.   I helped with the baking.  But the final assemby and decorating was way out of my league.  No way could the assembled cake have survived transport to the reception hall.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

And then he cites the Glenn Beck rag.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Since these gays had ordered cakes from this bakery before and picked them up without a problem, there was something more associated with this order.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:

Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon

He had religious symbols, and faith based decorations all over his shop. So how could this couple have known? It was in front of their very eyes. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they came there.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> And then he cites the Glenn Beck rag.



What, no argument? That can't be good.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


That's bullshit.  Total bullshit.

I have seen many a tiered wedding cake be picked up at the bakery and assembled at receptions, I have seen other wedding cakes that are not even tiered - in fact they have some of their Sweet Cakes website -- and you have no fucking idea the kind of wedding cake they were going to order.

They didn't even let the couple get that far.

Stop.  Just stop.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Frankly, they never made an order, so to say that Klein refused their order would be false. This claim will not stand up in court.


----------



## bendog (Sep 6, 2013)

You people know way too much about wedding cakes  (-:


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
> 
> Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon
> 
> He had religious symbols, and faith based decorations all over his shop. So how could this couple have known? It was in front of their very eyes. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they came there.


You must assume  every Christian who advertises their faith on the wall is a bigot willing to break the law in serving people equally.  

I see.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.  They did NOT refuse to serve gay people.  They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone.  They don't refuse to serve black people.  But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.
> ...



No.  They said they didn't do same sex weddings.  And the one line you keep citing was certainly not all there was to the conversation, now was it?  The gay couple definitely wanted a wedding cake that the bakers would have had to assemble at the reception hall.  Otherwise, they would have gotten their cake at the bakers as would any other customer.  As that very same gay couple had always received service at the same bakery.

Until you can show me proof that there was any other scenario, I will stand by my opinion on this.

To intentionally destroy a person's livelihood purely because you don't share their beliefs or convictions is pure bigotry, is unAmerican, and is evil.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Getting upset? Just because you say it's bullshit doesn't make it bullshit. Deny it all you want. You are now wrong.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
> ...



You expect us to tolerate your beliefs, but will not lend us the same credence.

I see.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> You people know way too much about wedding cakes  (-:



Makes you hungry for one, eh?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


The owners never said anything about delivering the cake.  They said they would not bake a cake for same sex weddings. 

This is just getting ridiculous now.

Poor connies.  Ever the victims.  When the story doesn't match, just make it up on the fly to perpetuate more victimhood.


----------



## Mainstreeter (Sep 6, 2013)

I agree with Noomi.  No one wants to do business with bigots.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Sounds like the victim here is you. You remind me of black folks who cry "RACIST!" when they don't get their way. Not looking good for you at all.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
> 
> Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon
> 
> He had religious symbols, and faith based decorations all over his shop. So how could this couple have known? It was in front of their very eyes. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they came there.



Why would it occur to someone that because someone believes in God they are also homophobic?  I dont get the connection.  I know plenty of people that belive in God and have no issue with gay people other than to disagree with their lifestyle.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Mainstreeter said:


> I agree with Noomi.  No one wants to do business with bigots.



And whose sock are you?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Asclepias said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
> ...



It is because we *believe* in God that we are *seen* as homophobic. I have no issue with homosexuals as far as the person is concerned, but I will not capitulate the tenets of my faith to beck to the every whim of theirs that I see as sinful. If marriage is about devotion, so is my faith. I am devoted to my Lord God and his ways, and I will not stray from him for the likes of anyone.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
> ...



It will be a sad day when we equate being a Christian with being a member of the KKK.  I just dont get how being a Christian should warn a gay person that they will be discriminated against.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?


----------



## hortysir (Sep 6, 2013)

Asclepias said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



You have nothing to fear.
Idiocy isn't a sin.

We have ALL sinned.
The 'trick' is to not REPEAT that sinful behavior


----------



## Mertex (Sep 6, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> Interesting.  I never heard that boycotts were "evil" during all the years the AFA was calling for all types of boycotts for gay friendly businesses.
> ...



Well, that's Republican/conservatives for you.  When they do it, it is okay, when someone else does it, (especially if it goes against their policies), then it is not okay.

I bet there won't be a post claiming that AFA is "evil" for it's boycotts.

Supporters of the American Family Association, a conservative non-profit organization whose mission is to "promote the Biblical ethic of decency in American society," are not going be Googling much. Or using Android phones. Or browsing with Chrome. Or checking their Gmail. Or, well, you get the idea.

American Family Association Calls For Boycott Of Google Over Company's Support Of LGBT Rights (VIDEO)



The American Family Association, whose earlier boycott of Ford Motor Co. over its promotion of homosexuality was dropped after company sales fell 8 percent per month for two years, now is asking consumers to stop buying Big Macs and Happy Meals at McDonalds.
Read more at ?Gay? McDonald?s prompts boycott 

?Gay? McDonald?s prompts boycott


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



If businesses would put out signs that tells us they refuse to service certain people, I'd be all for that. Then when I see the sign, I can make my choice and not go in there or do business with them. That would probably be to easy though.


----------



## bendog (Sep 6, 2013)

hortysir said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Ah, but that's the rub.  If a GLBT person finds homosexuality not a sin, can a person who sees it as a sin treat the GLBT as a sinner w/o the GLBT responding in kind?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What was their livelihood baking cakes or refusing service to gays.  They were boycotted for the later not the former.  Boycotting is a time honored tradition in America.  As is ignoring boycotts.  Yet here you are accusing the people who were raped, of their civil rights by these bigots, as not having the courtesy to pretend they enjoyed being raped by these bigots.  WOW just WOW


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Yeah sure, no shirt, no shoes, black, or gay = no service.   Yeah that might have gone over well in the sixties.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Refusing to participate in a same sex wedding isn't rape.  If you want to use rape, the Christians forced to participate in a same sex wedding against their will were spiritually raped.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You are right, it was all about not wanting to bake the cake for them, had nothing to do with delivering it.  Also, it was about what he called them.  Insulted them to their face.

So much for hating the sin and not the sinner.  He could have told them "he" believed their relationship was an abomination, not that *they* were an abomination.  


Klein apologized to the women and told them *he and his wife do not make cakes for same-sex marriages. * Klein said the women were disgusted and walked out.
One of the women filed a complaint on January 28 also saying Klein referred to them as abominations unto the Lord and now the Oregon Attorney Generals civil enforcement officers are investigating the claim.
Oregon Baker Faces State Investigation After Refusing to Make Same-Sex Couple?s Wedding Cake | Video | TheBlaze.com


----------



## hortysir (Sep 6, 2013)

bendog said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



I love my nieces to pieces 
They know that I feel it's all between them and Him

I don't "treat them" as sinners. maybe twice we've had the discussion about it being a sin.
I would never lock them (or anyone else) out for it


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

5





bendog said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



A true Christian would not judge the GLBT person as a sinner but only their own conduct in relation to the GLBT person.  Just as the baker did.

Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 6, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



If the homosexuals didn't pay taxes, you might have a point, but they do, and they contribute to the benefits that businesses utilize, ergo, the businesses have no reason to refuse service to them because they are homosexual.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Asclepias said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



How asinine. Were you not even reading my comment?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Refusing to participate in a same sex wedding isn't rape.  If you want to use rape, the Christians forced to participate in a same sex wedding against their will were spiritually raped.



What part of the wedding were they "forced" to participate?  We're they ring bearers or flower girls?  Maid of Honor?  Preacher?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Mainstreeter said:


> I agree with Noomi.  No one wants to do business with bigots.



Obviously that is incorrect as this couple wanted very much to do business with this bakery, even to the point of denying what most of us consider a fundamental right... that being the freedom of association.  Now I am a Christian, but I am one who believes that this baker is wrong in not serving "sinners".  Christ never taught such garbage and would have gladly used his carpentry skills for them had he been asked.

By the way, if they were set on not serving sinners, they would have to close up shop because they could not serve any of us.

Immie


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Refusing to participate in a same sex wedding isn't rape.  If you want to use rape, the Christians forced to participate in a same sex wedding against their will were spiritually raped.



Ok now you are on point.

We have two people who each have a valid grievance.  One was refused service based on sexual orientation, thus violating their civil right to be served in a public marketplace.   One was boycotted for refusing to provide said service as a services provider in said public marketplace.

The law is clearly on the side of the public having the right to be served without discrimination.   We have civil rights laws for that.  The law is also on the side of the baker, in so far as the baker only has to provide services to the public if the baker is selling to the public at large from a public shop.  The law is further on the side of the baker, in so far as if the boycott is "slanderous" then the baker can sue for lost business. 

The baker has the right to close up shop if they don't want to serve gay people. 

Problem solved.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 6, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Would you spend money in such establishments? I wouldn't. I'd stay away and so would others. Right now we don't know whether an owner is a bigot asshole or not. Why give your money to a bigoted asshole?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> 5
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong, the baker called them "an abomination to the Lord".  He could have said their relationship was an abomination to the Lord, but instead insulted them.



> Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?


It is not a personal sin to treat everyone equally.  Where do some Christians get the idea that hating people for what they are is "Christian"?  

Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"?  Some Christians need some introspection.  They are putting themselves on the same level as God.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette.  That was in 1960.  They were very nice people.  When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior.  I was so young, I thought they were kidding.  I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out.  I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit.  No harm done.   What happened to that kind of freedom?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Mainstreeter said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Noomi.  No one wants to do business with bigots.
> ...



I appreciate your comments but can you explain the "freedom of association" as a fundamental right?  Because I have no idea what you're talking about.  The Freedom of Association mentioned in the BOR dealt with actually forming "associations" such as political parties, trade unions, etc.  It had nothing to do with personal realtionships or the interaction between a business owner and a customer.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > 5
> ...



According to the story I read, the Christian was very polite.  It was someone on site who used that phrase, "abomination to The Lord".  Do you have a link to back this up.  Mine was the article in the Blaze presented earlier.  I am unsure which version is true, but I think the abomination statement is seeped in hyperbole and probably not what actually happened.

Immie


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette.  That was in 1960.  They were very nice people.  When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior.  I was so young, I thought they were kidding.  I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out.  I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit.  No harm done.   What happened to that kind of freedom?




Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 6, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



I guess you weren't around in the 50's?  Businesses had such signs, and people still patronized them.  Today, there are plenty of people that would do business with such bigots because they are the same as the bigots.

The film brought to light how prevalent racism and discrimination practices were rooted in Texas since the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Mexican-Americans have been treated as second class citizens in Texas and the U.S. since then. The film showed visible signs that read *no dogs, no Negros, no Mexicans and we serve whites only, no Spanish or Mexicans. *Its amazing to think that this kind of bigotry and racism was tolerated.

Read more: No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes
No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes


Part of the sign reads: "Halloween 2011. No blacks welcomed to trick or treat."
Racist Sign Sparks Outrage in Northeast El Paso | KTSM News Channel 9 | News, Weather and Sports | El Paso, Las Cruces, Juarez


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



If it was in The Blaze it must be true...


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette.  That was in 1960.  They were very nice people.  When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior.  I was so young, I thought they were kidding.  I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out.  I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit.  No harm done.   What happened to that kind of freedom?



Easy.  Congress passed the civil rights act in 1964, which "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce."

The point on interstate commerce, being that if you create a "private" club you can discriminate all you want.


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I read your comment but it didnt make much sense.  I know people that believe in God and are against being gay but they treat people with respect and do not discriminate. I get the impression you think its godlike to discriminate against gay people.


----------



## bendog (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> 5[Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?



Ah, but the baker was not forced BY THE BOYCOTT to do anything.  If he thought catering their wedding was a sin, he was free not to cater.  He applied a consequence to people having a wedding he considered sinful.  They applied a consequence to him, as a result.
The Baker was free to continue catering to all those who would hire him.

The State anti-discrimination laws did force the Baker to comply, or cease baking commercially.  But, as I said, I personally find the anti-discrimantion laws to be "too much govt" for me.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



The link I provided, said the woman filed a complaint and claimed he said that.  He denies it, but the fact that he refused to serve them because of their sexual orientation is against the law in Oregon.  

I would not be surprised if he did say that to them, because so many proclaimed Christians have used the term quite openly on many of these Forums.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


It's in the original formal complaint made by the lesbians.

They stated it as truthful under penalty of perjury.

He said it, unless you are calling what the lesbian said under oath a lie.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette.  That was in 1960.  They were very nice people.  When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior.  I was so young, I thought they were kidding.  I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out.  I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit.  No harm done.   What happened to that kind of freedom?
> ...



It disagrees with your personally held opinions.

In 1960, I could be fired for getting married or they could have told a black person to leave.   In 1960 I was 15 years old and there weren't any work permits.   There was a lot more freedom in 1960 than today.   

So what happens TODAY, if a job applicant shows up for an interview and  refuses the job solely because the boss is gay?  If there is a civil right to the labor of another can the applicant be forced to work there?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I deal in historical paper a lot, and I have seen a lot of brochures,ads and signs where the owner states clearly "No Irish need apply" and "Hebrews are not welcome."

Then of course, the really sick ones, saying "N-- 's stay out."


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Asclepias said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Why would I do that when I have gay friends? I will not do something that violates the teachings of my faith. There's a difference between that and openly discriminating against them. Your assumption was a preconception.

Don't you get it?


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Your faith teaches you to not make wedding cakes for gay couples because you believe that only a man and woman should get married?  Is this correct?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


It sounds petty and made up.



> In 1960, I could be fired for getting married or they could have told a black person to leave.   In 1960 I was 15 years old and there weren't any work permits.   There was a lot more freedom in 1960 than today.


Freedom for us whites, but not for blacks, or Hispanics.  Funny how perspective affects our reaction.  How could it be freedom to be told you had to sit at the back of the bus, or had to go to the upper level in movie theaters, or drink from separate fountains?



> So what happens TODAY, if a job applicant shows up for an interview and  refuses the job solely because the boss is gay?  If there is a civil right to the labor of another can the applicant be forced to work there?


No, the applicant doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to, however, businesses cannot deny a "taxpayer" a job because he is gay, white, black, Hispanic. 

 I'm sure that business owners are savvy enough to make up some other excuse, but if he is stupid enough to go against the law and tell the applicant that he isn't hiring him because he is white, black, brown or gay, then he is responsible for the consequences.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

There's a big big difference between saying you won't do something because someone is gay, and not doing it because it violates the religious teachings of your faith. That's one critical thing all of you pro gay folks missed. 

If I openly discriminated against gays, I would not be a good Christian. I don't stop them from enjoying the rights I have, the things I have, the freedom that I have. They are Americans just as I am. But I will not in a quintillion years violate the teachings of my faith just to sate the whims of a homosexual. I can be friendly and tolerant of them, but I will not capitulate to them. 

But then again, you don't mind placing unfair obligations on people, do you?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Asclepias said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Can the sarcasm. And read the my comment above this one. I am entitled to believe that marriage is a union between male and female. To do so in any other order is a violation of God's natural order. You are entitled to believe gay folks can get married, but that sort of belief is best kept to those who support it, and not those who feel like it is being forced on them.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

There were _five _reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week,  who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.  

*WW Asks - I  was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My  coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very  simple: just a green pentagram. We&#8217;d like to pick it up sometime that  afternoon, before the bonfire. It&#8217;ll be for about 30 people.
*

*Sweet Cake says - &#8220;For 30 people we have a couple options... We have two kind of cakes you could  have. About the diagram you want on the cake, I&#8217;m not sure how much  extra that would be.&#8221;

*
Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make


It is revealing once the Sweet Cakey bakers found out they were caught going against another tenant of the _Christian_ faith, they contacted Lars Larson to cry victimhood some more.


"Sweet Cakes owners  Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we &#8220;would even try to entrap a  business&#8221; and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson. "


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

It strikes me quite odd, how Gay people feel Christians are forcing themselves on them, when they are the ones saying that Christians should be made to adapt, to ignore the teachings of their faith to accept homosexuality. That is wrong.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

It would seem that a gay couple would more naturally be drawn to a business that said "same sex weddings a specialty.  Large selection of same sex cake toppers".    Rather than make a point of looking for someone who might object.   A decent person, that is a person with a sense of decency, would not ask an overtly Christian business to make the cake in the first place.    If only not to give those nasty Christians their patronage.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> There were _five _reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week,  who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.
> 
> *WW Asks - I  was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My  coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very  simple: just a green pentagram. We&#8217;d like to pick it up sometime that  afternoon, before the bonfire. It&#8217;ll be for about 30 people.
> *
> ...



And different bakeries. Game over. Screw off. WWeek is a pro gay website too... you really think they would do honest reporting? Yes, I knew you'd try that. You dishonest prick!


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I really am trying to understand.  No sarcasm intended. No one is forcing you to change your beliefs.  It just doesn't make sense to me what you are saying.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> It strikes me quite odd, how Gay people feel Christians are forcing themselves on them, when they are the ones saying that Christians should be made to adapt, to ignore the teachings of their faith to accept homosexuality. That is wrong.


You don;t like it, change the freakin' law.

You think members of the Native American Church can ingest peyote (it's long been a sacrament for them) and claim they are allowed to break the law just because it's their religious belief?  

Think again.

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

_We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse  him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that  the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than  a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that  proposition._

 And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


_Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long  struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from  obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of  religious beliefs._

 And, also, too:


_Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of  free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply  with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground  that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion  prescribes (or proscribes)."_

 And, finally:


_It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political  process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices  that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of  democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each  conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social  importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs._


​*ouch*


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



It's not equal treatment is it?  An applicant can outright say he or she refuses to work for gays, blacks or anyone else and the employer is pretty much helpless.   The applicant can get downright insulting can't they?

No equality and no discrmination either.  You know that has to change.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Asclepias said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




I have told you repeatedly. If you fail to understand me this one last time, there is nothing further I can do for you. I appreciate your willingness to learn about what I believe, however. I believe marriage is between a male and a female. I believe that is how God ordained it. I also believe that the couple in that Bakery had the right to deny service on the basis of such belief. My faith teaches me that homosexuality is a sin of the world, and as such I am not to be of the world, but merely exist in this world as a servant of God. Acting as an enabler to sin would be me straying from my path as a Christian. I see any actions that enable or encourage homosexuality as sinful. I am wholly repulsed by it. I will however be caring and kind to a homosexual, I will never display hatred for them. I am taught to love one another as Jesus loved me. Caring and kindness does not equal condonement. 

Did that clear anything up for you? Asclepias?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > It strikes me quite odd, how Gay people feel Christians are forcing themselves on them, when they are the ones saying that Christians should be made to adapt, to ignore the teachings of their faith to accept homosexuality. That is wrong.
> ...



I will not hear any further dishonesty from you. The bakers constitutional rights trump state law. So if he claims it. Game over for you.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > There were _five _reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week,  who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.
> ...




It's pro gay! lol (nothing I've seen shows that - they are the local paper there)...and lookie loo, you out yourself some more (leading me to think you don't really have gay friends) -- just by the mere fact they are what you call a "gay website" -- you jump off the bridge and call them liars. 

"you really think they would do honest reporting?"  See, right there.  Gays  are apparently, to you, inherently dishonest.  Do we need more proof?



> Yes, I knew you'd try that. You dishonest prick!


There's that ever-so Jesusy Christianity shining through again.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 6, 2013)

Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?

Yes.

Do we have the right to boycott and picket their business in retaliation?

Yes.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Aaaaaaaaaaaaannnd, we're into Jump the Shark territory now.

The US Supreme Court Ruling with the opinion written by ultra conservative Anthony Scalia affirming you can't claim First Amendment rights to break the law is "more dishonesty."

I think you're on you're own at this point buddy.

By the way, the picture on your profile page of you...is pretty much exactly what I thought you looked like.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yeah, WWeek describes itself as an "alternative news source for the Portland area."  Really?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



In place of an argument you insult my appearance. How cute. I wonder why you hide your face from us? You who hide in anonymity?


----------



## Asclepias (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Yes it does.

I understand you believe they were within their rights to deny service to the gay couple but its against the law to do that correct? I am having trouble understanding why someone that is attempting to avoid sin or encouraging sin would open up a business that serves the public.  The world is full of sinners.  Where do you draw the line on the level of sin you will tolerate in your store?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



Customers have the right to be bigots.  We knew that all along.  They just don't exercise that right enough.   Targeting a few gay owned businesses should do quite nicely.  Nothing nasty just identifying the business as gay owned and let everyone make up their own minds.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Sorry, still smells.

I'm not buying that your two lesbo employers were fine with you being a straight employee but locked you out when you got married.  Plus, you were 15?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Mainstreeter said:
> ...



That would be the association I am talking about.  There are all types of relationships not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean that because they are not mentioned, we do not have the very same freedom as those dealt with?  

As for business relationships and the idea that a business must serve all customers if they advertise their wares, I have asked this before and no one seems to answer.  Should a black gun shop owner be required to sell weapons and ammo to individuals who enter his shop wearing sheets and hoods?  I do not think so.  Should a vendor of surgical equipment who happens to be pro-life be required to sell scalpels and other equipment to an abortion clinic?  Again, I do not think so.  Should a movie theater which has consistently shown family oriented films and never shown anything above a PG rating suddenly be forced to rent the rights of an X-Rated film and show it on its screen?  Again I do not think so.

Should a cathouse be required to serve the vice squad that busted its employees last week come Friday night?  Don't think so.

Public accommodation laws are wrong.  The government should not interfere with the rights of business owners to choose whom to serve.  I say that knowing full well that someone will say, "should a white bigot be allowed not to serve black people"? As disgusting as I think that is, I have to say yes. I also realize that if that were the case we would still be the backward country we were 50 years ago.  I simply believe that even a bigot has the right to be a bigot.  No matter how sorry I feel for them.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *Katzndogz*
> 
> 
> _
> ...So what happens TODAY, if a job applicant shows up for an interview and   refuses the job solely because the boss is gay?  If there is a civil  right to the labor of another can the applicant be forced to work there?_



Not to fret.  There are still plenty of states out there that can still fire you just because you are gay.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> There's a big big difference between saying you won't do something because someone is gay, and not doing it because it violates the religious teachings of your faith. That's one critical thing all of you pro gay folks missed.
> 
> If I openly discriminated against gays, I would not be a good Christian. I don't stop them from enjoying the rights I have, the things I have, the freedom that I have. They are Americans just as I am. But I will not in a quintillion years violate the teachings of my faith just to sate the whims of a homosexual. I can be friendly and tolerant of them, but I will not capitulate to them.
> 
> But then again, you don't mind placing unfair obligations on people, do you?




Again, how does baking a cake violate your religious teachings?  If anything, the cake will be used AFTER the ceremony when there is nothing you can do about it.  At that point your just being a childish spoiled sport.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



That is not what I said but it appears a lot more realistic than the shit presented stated he called them an "abomination to The Lord" especially one that does not seem to have been backed up by anything whatsoever.

Immie


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paper, read this before you open your mouth about the Supreme Court saying this or that about homosexuality:

According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution,

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It would seem that a gay couple would more naturally be drawn to a business that said "same sex weddings a specialty.  Large selection of same sex cake toppers".    Rather than make a point of looking for someone who might object.   *A decent person, that is a person with a sense of decency, would not ask an overtly Christian business to make the cake in the first place.    *If only not to give those nasty Christians their patronage.



Again, did the xtian bakery have a big talking snake out front?  Did they have a sign "homos need not enter"?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > There were _five _reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week,  who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.
> ...




Jebus be watching...


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



actually, they do all the time... which is what the OP is whining about.  Some Homophobes decided to try to wave their bibles in someone's face and got bitch-slapped by the state.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?
> ...



Where in the bible does it say "Thou shalt not do bidness with a homo or ye shall go to hell".

For 2000 years xtianity has been making up the rules as they go along.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?
> ...



So you would boycott the business not because the owners broke the law or demonstrated bigotry and hatred toward certain customers, but just because they are gay?

Xtians...what are you going to do?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



There is no law against being a bigot or thinking bigoted thoughts.  there are however laws about how a public business conducts itself and one of them is that one cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion and yes, sexual orientation.

Go ahead and be the biggest bigot in private you want, but once you start a public business who serves the general public and put those bigotries into action in that business you are breaking the law.

And if you don't like the law change it or move your business to country more to your sentiments...like Russia.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



If it isn't covered in the BOR, Constitution or state and local laws, then no, it isn't a right.


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 6, 2013)

there is a way to be able to discriminate in your business.

you have to declare you business a private club and only allow in members.

all members must be served.

but if you don't blacks, Jews, gays, whatever...all you have to do is not invite them to be members.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Based on other comments alleged to be made by the bakery owners and ones they have not denied, I have no reason to believe they didn't make this comment as alleged by others.  Personally, I'm surprised they didn't go further like "you're going to hell!".


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> there is a way to be able to discriminate in your business.
> 
> you have to declare you business a private club and only allow in members.
> 
> ...



But they would go out of business pretty quick.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner.  Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this.  I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing.  Sadly, I don't think that would happen.  

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation.  Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination.  I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court.  The baker was not rude.  He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white.  We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere.  We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi.  We stopped for lunch.  Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited.  After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?"  It was obvious she was black.  We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else.  She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us.  It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around.  I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety.  Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again.  There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust.  Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter.  Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



How many times have I said in this thread that my aunt used to make wedding cakes and I would deliver them with her?

At least 3.
That's how I know that as a baker you do not attend the wedding or the reception.

But you people who have never delivered wedding cakes seem to think that the baker must attend the ceremony and the reception.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Baking a cake is not participating in a marriage it is baking a cake.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over.  The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


Ham sammich!

Because.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Plus they're getting paid for it.  

What I would like to know is if these xtian bakers refused to bake cakes for people on their second marriage because divorce AND adultery is also forbidden in the bible, for people who engaged in premarital sex since that is forbidden,  anal and oral sex, masturbation since those are forbidden and any kind of recreational sex except for the purpose of procreation since THAT is forbidden as well.

I'm thinking if they really held true to ALL their religious dictates they wold be awfully lonely as well as broke.  The gay thing is easy because they are only 3% of the pop and they can hate them without too much blowback...well, until now.  Plus the added bonus of knowing THEY aren't gay and consequently will be going _straight_ to heaven.

I think the anal sex one is particularly juicy since studies show that over 40% of heteros have experimented with that one at one time or another.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



It's hilarious, I think I've seen that one at least 5 times on 5 different websites.  It's like they get all their talking points from the same website...probably Glenn beck.

For those unaware the question is "Will Jewish Deli's be forced to serve bacon and ham sandwiches now because someone demands it?"

Fer christ's sake....


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...





Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I hope this multi-quote worked right.  I am replying to Mertex, Paperview and Alfalfa.  I have not seen the links provided, but will take your word for it that the statement was in the links and in the complaint and apologize if I was wrong in my statements.

I hope that comment was not made and will note that just because it is in a complaint does not make it true.  Evidence must be presented verifying that it was said and at this moment it is "he said, she said".  I will note that if it is not true, this not be the first time someone lied on an affidavit.  

From what I have read, the bakery has stated they are willing to serve  the gay community but that they draw the line at gay weddings.  I have to say, I do not begrudge them that right.  

Sweet Cakes by Melissa closes storefront

I will also note that the OP article mentioned some pretty disgusting comments by the homosexual community against the owners of the bakery, but I guess this is acceptable in this case because the bakery owners had it coming.  It seems those threats and comments are being ignored here.

By the way, for Alfalfa's benefit, BDBoop is not a right wing fanatic.  In fact she's not a right winger at all.

Immie

edit: crap, I didn't get the quote thing right this time.  I was including Mertex's post number 822 and thank you three for the information.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



Historic?  As in from the late 1800's?  How do those apply to today?  

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Why is anything you said a problem that requires government intervention?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



 [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]: already told you that's a lie. Don't try that argument again.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Nobody has said that at all.  But you do have to have your truck on the premises.  You do have to be there to set up the cake.  And if somebody does not wish to go to somebody else's premises, for ANY reason, they should not be forced to do so.  Any law that would require them to do so is a law that is bad law.

Why is it that everybody in the free world is allowed choice and the right to say what is on their mind except for conservatives and Christians.  What kind of bigots think that a Christian baker should lose his/her livelihood because they do not wish to provide services anywhere?

To destroy a person's livelihood purely because they hold convictions you disagree with is among the worst kind of evil.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


No, From the 1940's and 50's.

The Irish ones not so much, those are from earlier, the other ones, yep.  Not that long ago.

It's applicable because that's what *did* happen in America....not that long ago.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > You guys don't think it's funny when people make fun of or criticize gay people, but you seem not to mind when it comes to making fun of or criticizing Christians. Why the double standard?
> ...



I didn't get all the way through it, mostly because the very first thing she said is wrong, but thanks for proving you aren't any smarter than she is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

editec said:


> There is nothing Christian about bigotry.



I knew you were arrogant, but telling me Jesus was wrong when he told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more really takes the cake.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Did BDBoop post?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You don't know what a thick skin is.

Hint, it isn't talking about being called names and claiming a self righteous demeanor as a result.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 6, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.
> ...


Yeah FoxFyre  Does that make the SOCONS (you) "evil" as well?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Hmm, nope.  Just race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation (in some states).  No can of worms is opened, there is no _slippery slope_.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against     homosexuals in the US.
> 
> Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny     rights to others.
> ...



And, if there was no Bible, all that stuff would still have happened. 

The part you seem to be forgetting is how people used the Bible to fight against all those things. Is that because you hate the truth?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I haven't seen you deny saying that you are a scum eating slug, does that mean I should assume you are?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Hear ye Hear ye.

Foxfyre has been anointed the spokesperson for all wedding cakes straight and gay, that have ever happened in all of America. 

So don't you dare try that again.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Did BDBoop post?


She's not here now, but heads up:  She's a good 'un.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Actually, as wrong as I think Public Accommodation laws are in situations such as this, I do not think I would want them repealed.  Even though I think a bigot should have the right to be a bigot and to be run out of town by his customers, I honestly don't think we (the customers) would do it.

I think the bakery has the right to refuse service for a same sex wedding.  I think the black gun shop owner has the right to refuse to serve the KKK.  I think the photographer has the right not to photograph a gay wedding.  On the other hand, I do not think a restaurant owner should have the right to refuse service to blacks or vice versa nor to the gay community, nor hispanics, Jewish people, Asians etc.  Repealing Public Accommodation Laws would open all of that up, but there should be some common sense applied here.  A muslim should not be required to cater a Christian wedding.  A pro-life medical supplier should not be required to supply equipment to an abortion clinic... etc. etc. etc.  Common sense can be applied in these cases.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You seem to think that them not going to the wedding somehow justifies them being forced to sell the cake.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



You realize, I hope, that they were probably instructed by their attorney to not make any statements whatsoever in this matter, because opposing attorney have the knack of twisting your words no matter what you say.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Baking a cake is art, and protected under the 1st Amendment.

Want to try and argue that your grandmother didn't consider what she did art?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > there is a way to be able to discriminate in your business.
> ...



Really?  Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club?  No women allowed for how many years?

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery,  wife-beating, condemning     "witches" to death, denying women the vote,  or even any position of     power; it was used to justify wars,  genocide, segregation, child     abuse and the divine right of kings. I  could go on and on.
> ...


Now...Alfalfa, the Windbag here...

Just think of him as another doombug.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Can't take the fact you were blown out of the water by someone who actually deals with wedding cakes, can you? Yeah, I'll try that again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



You are an idiot, and a bigot, but you think you are smart, so that should help.

Public accommodation laws apply to every business, even those owned by blacks, and force them to serve the KKK if they show up. I have an actual case to back my position up, all you have is your delusional belief that you are smarter than I am.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Race is a protected class and just as the gay community could make the claim that this bakery refused service to gays when according to the bakery it is only for same sex weddings, the KKK can make the case that they are being discriminated against because of their race.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



What I want to know is why you would care if they did or not.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...


But because of ****Free Speech Rights*** -- and that alone, not gov't intervention, they started to allow women golfers.  Or didn't you notice?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



The 40's and 50's are ancient history, by gosh! We even had desegregation since then!  This country has changed in regards to race relations since those days.  Unfortunately not enough, but it has changed.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Did BDBoop post?
> ...



I'll vouch for that as well even though she favors the left.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Want to explain why things like that happened in China even though they did not have a Bible if the Bible is the cause of that type of behavior?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Wait, how do woman golfers relate to this discussion?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Er...

From the other case (from a Mar 2103 story):

"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered  on how to differentiate between photography being a business or  protected artistic expression.


 "Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you  force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux  Klan?"


 Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But  he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the  couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


 {55}
  Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it   would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally   refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. 

*This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and   political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not   protected categories under the NMHRA.
*
  See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based   on&#8220;race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual   orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental   handicap&#8221. 
*
Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux   Klan rally.* However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the   hypothetical are reversed&#8212;a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a   photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to   photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. 

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal   rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination   based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Did you pay attention to what you just said? If people can solve problems without government, why do you insist on the government being involved in fixing things?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



They were quite nice about it and explained it clearly.  Discrimination was not an often used word in 1960.   Ii had worked for them for two years.  Since I was 13.  I mentioned it solely to illustrate the level of freedom people had in 1960 compared to what people have today.  To me, then and now, those women had an absolute right to fire me for any reason or no reason.  They had the same right to fire me as I had to quit.  The baker should have the same right to decline a customer as the customer has to go to another bakery.

It's called freedom the US should try it again.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Dot Com, your mirror is calling. It's begging you to give it a look.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Yes, I knew.  I said "for how many years"?

They should have opened their membership up decades ago.  Well actually, membership should never have been closed to women, but not much we can do about that now... by the way, who wants to belong to any club without women anyway?  

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Now we have an idiot that thinks he can read minds.

Guess what, you can't. I was talking about a biker gang wearing Nazi symbols in a restaurant, and the restaraunt losing when they were sued for not serving them and calling the police. 

Don't worry though, you have a fake thick skin, so being so stupid you think you can read minds, and being bitch slapped as a result, shouldn't bother you.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



2103?  Hell, I thought you said you dealt in historic documents not fantasy or futuristic documents!

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Because Immie brought it up?

Doofus.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


I'm with you on that.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Since when did you care what Jesus thinks?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well, if you're calling me a scum eating slug, yes, I deny it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Whatever. You're just trolling people now. Gone back at least three pages and that is all you have done. You think you know everything there is to know, don't you?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'm sure somehow this makes sense to you.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...



You're comparing a private golf club with a public cake baking business?


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Link.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



On the other hand, part of this discussion did in fact deal with whether or not a hypothetical black gun shop owner should be required to sell weapons and ammo to the KKK.  In the case mentioned in the post it was a black photographer and the KKK.  I think PPV's post was appropriate in this discussion and I didn't get the impression that PPV was trying to "read your mind", just make a relevant post.  You stated you had an actual case to back your statement up.  PPV simply replied with an actual case as well.

Immie


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel;779499=Alfalfa;7794876 said:
			
		

> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white.  We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere.  We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi.  We stopped for lunch.  Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited.  After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?"  It was obvious she was black.  We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else.  She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us.  It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around.  I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety.  Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again.  There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust.  Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.
> ...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > You guys don't think it's funny when people make fun of or criticize gay people, but you seem not to mind when it comes to making fun of or criticizing Christians. Why the double standard?
> ...



Sounds like she didn't. Nor did you. 

Here's a question. Would I go around disrespecting Islam in the same manner people like you insult my faith? Muslims not only go as far as to discriminate against homosexuals, they kill them. Not only that, but they have no respect for women. But see, nobody points that out. People act as if my faith is the *only one* remotely capable of being indifferent to gays or women. I remember once hearing some random liberal say they were all about religious tolerance, tolerance and social equality; well... given some of the reactions on this thread by some, I've come to see that as a blatant lie. This instance with the bakery only strengthens that belief. 

Notice that the majority of the time I have been on this board, I have never denigrated someone for their faith, or their sexual orientation. I have made many attempts to make peace with my enemies (yes you at one point) Yeah, I call people stupid and idiotic all the time (yes, yes I know, not Christian) but still. Would you peg me for the intolerant type? Noomi?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



No, you stated any business that discriminated would go out of business rather quickly.  I'm pointing out that you are wrong in that case and in fact in many cases.  Actually, most cases.  Bigots don't get run out of business, because it is too easy to find customers that agree with them usually silently.

In fact, apparently, even Sweet Cakes by Melissa, those evil Christian bigots are not out of business.  They simply relocated and they may even see their business grow because of this.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Now you deny it, why didn't you deny it before?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I am even more sure it doesn't to you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Look it up, I made two threads about it since I have been here.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


So you can't link it?

How do I know it wasn't blown out of the water, like your other threads?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



How old is your oldest child?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

may be the bigot bakers should have posted a sign : no shoes  no shirt no lesbians no gays no democrats  no ethnicities  no exceptions (being ironic)


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



He replied to me. It may have been applicable to the thread, but it wasn't applicable to my post.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white.  We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere.  We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi.  We stopped for lunch.  Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited.  After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?"  It was obvious she was black.  We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else.  She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us.  It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around.  I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety.  Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again.  There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust.  Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.
> ...



You know, the neighborhood didn't look all that much different than what I lived in at the time.  I didn't feel the least bit threatened.  But, then, I was from California and I was in the South for my first time.  Yes, I had read my history and knew that things were terrible "way back then".  This wasn't Chicago, it was a small "friendly" town.  It didn't look "ghetto".  

I have thought many times that maybe that is exactly what she did, but why?  I was no threat to her or anyone around.  I would have loved the opportunity to learn a little bit about the South from someone who had lived it.  

Like I said, I wish I could go back and visit and maybe get a feel for what life is really like, because growing up in the SF Bay Area, I never had to deal with too much of the racial crap.  Of course, I wouldn't step foot in Oakland today not even to visit my grandparent's old house.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I already did link it, look it up. If you think you can blow it out of the water, you shouldn't have any problem. After all, you are smarter than I am, and have a thick skin.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Kay.  So you won't link it.  Fine.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Like the priesthood.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I told you, I already did.

At least twice.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


or the boy scouts


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




DC,

I'm not a social conservative.  I've been a Republican since I first registered to vote in 1978.  SoCon's don't have a problem with a big interventionist government and using it to deny equal treatment to gays (i.e. such as laws and amendments barring Civil Marriage).

My solution is much simpler and has two prongs, both of which designed to reduce government interference:

1.  Civil Marriage establishes a family relationship between two non-related adults.  There are no conditions that apply to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults of different-sexes that also do not apply to same-sex couples.  Therefore there is no compelling government interest in denying Civil Marrige based on gender.

2.  Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private business usurp the inherent right of property of the private business owner.  Therefore Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to choose which customers they want sell their goods or services to - with only one narrow exception - emergency medical care in a life threatening conditions.  Public Accommodation laws should, of course, still apply wholly to government entities to not discriminate against the public they (we) serve and include (a) services rendered directly, and (b) restrictions on purchasing goods and services from private entities which operate under discriminatory practices.​

Under such conditions you end up with the best of both worlds.  SoCon's can't use the government to discriminate and Liberals can't use the government to punish those who feel compelled to discriminate.

(And "Yes", when I say repeal Public Accommodation laws I mean all those based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc.)



>>>>


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Where?  I'm looking and I can't find it.

Look, if you don't want to link it, just say so. 

I showed my court case.

You link us up to your where "Public accommodation laws...force[d] them to serve the KKK if they show up. "  You announced proudly "I have an actual case to back my position up" <-- Your words.

But now you don't want to show your proof.  Figgers.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Hmmm, no, I said a business (retail) that tried to operate like a private club with members only would be out of business.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I did, as soon as I saw it.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


Sorry to say Immie, he's got you on that.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Hey, that was your faith by birth.  Mine allows ministers to marry... but then, so far my faith does not allow women to be ministers, which is something I hope they will eventually change.  

Of course, I have not joined that particular "club".  I hated public speaking in college.  The thought of having to do it every Sunday morning turns my stomach.

Immie


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



So all are not treated equal.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




The emphasized part depends on location.  In California the Unruh Act (California Civil Rights Law) as been expanded by the Calififornia Supreme Court to deal with all types of discrimination as it pertains to California Law.

On the other hand the New Mexico Supreme Court said:

" Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA."​
So in New Mexico, not a black shop owner would not be forced to sell to the KKK.

And yes here is an actual case that backs up that such application varies -->> Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock



Now if you have something from the SCOTUS that shows that Pubic Accommodation laws have to include political organizations - feel free to present a link.


>>>>


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



All _what_ are not treated equal?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




They can claim anything they want, the problem would be they would have to prove that the business turned them down based on race and not as a political organization (which is not a protected class).

All the shop owner would have to do is start calling white clients to the stand and after the first dozen or so witness with the next 100-200 waiting in the wings to testify, the judge would probably make a summary judgement in the defendants favor.


>>>>


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Not really, but I don't feel it is necessary to argue semantics here.  

You see any business trying to operate like a private club would not be a business open to the public, in fact, it would be a private club so the scenario does not make sense.

Also, there are examples of retail businesses that do in fact operate like private clubs.  These would be Sam's Club, Costco and the likes.  They are still in business.  Anyone remember Gemco?  

Now, those examples are stretching things a little bit because I can't think of anyone who cannot buy a membership into Sam's Club or Costco, but I suspect that if some asshole wanted to open up a co-op retail business and not sell to muslims, he could probably do so as a private club and have more than enough customers to keep him in business maybe even have people clamoring at his door begging for membership.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


He won't.

You know it.

I know it.

Bob Dole knows it.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so.  According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past.  They simply drew the line at the wedding.  

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


Costco and Sams Club are not a "private business."

As you recognize clearly, anyone can buy membership.


----------



## paperview (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Is there some kind of straight/gay check off box they use when they sell a cupcake or cake?  lol

No.  They stated clearly, and have to numerous other same sex couples, they do not service those who want cakes for gay weddings.

They denied them on the basis of their orientation.  There's no getting around this. That goes against Oregon Law.

They don't like it?  Work to change that law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Do you know how to use Google?

Let me google that for you


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Had they served those very same couples birthday cake on one of their birthdays?

If so, they should not have to worry.  IMHO but then I think the basic speed law sucks and so does this aspect of the Public Accommodation laws so what do I matter?  I think the judge in the case you cited that stated that a black photographer could refuse service to the KKK ( I support this aspect) but a white photographer (Something is just plain wrong with this) could not refuse service to a black man (and no, I would never consider doing such a thing, but my photography skills suck anyway so I would actually be doing him a favor), must have had his head up his ass, so what do I matter?

Immie

PS Can I be arrested for saying that I think a judge had to have his head up his ass?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 6, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> To destroy somebody purely because they hold a convicton you don't share is evil.


I agree. To me, if you do not agree with where another person stands on things, you should just wash your hands of them completely. 



Mertex said:


> Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"?


He is, but I believe that we have to ask him for it because we do not automatically have it. The thing is that as long as a person doesn't think that they are doing anything wrong to begin with, they are not going to think that they have a reason to ask for his forgiveness, therefore they will not get it.



hortysir said:


> We have ALL sinned.
> The 'trick' is to not REPEAT that sinful behavior


Amen to this!

God bless you three always!!!   

Holly


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Since SSM is not recognized in Oregon the lesbian couple was not asking for a cake for a wedding, but for a domestic partnership.  Since it wasn't a wedding, what was the objection to making the cake?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



What is it with you and semantics?    j/k

In answer to your question, I can only say, I don't know, you would have to ask them.  I will repeat what I said in my first couple of posts on this subject.  I would not have refused them service.  So, I can't answer for them.  

Personally, I believe the bakery's refusal of service was not Christ like.  As I said, Christ would have prepared a table for them, well, I think I edited that out and stated he would have used his carpentry skills for them, but Christ would not have refused this couple service.  Having done so, this bakery does not display a Christian attitude.  IMHO.  

Christ would have built the table first, then he would have set it with a meal for them to join him and the crowd would have gathered around.  I can't and won't justify this couple's stance.  I will repeat however, that I believe the government is wrong when it imposes a business to cater to individuals they do not want to serve.

Immie


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 6, 2013)

If everyone had your attitude Immie there would be need for these kinds of laws.  But they are needed.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> If everyone had your attitude Immie there would be need for these kinds of laws.  But they are needed.



Hey wait a minute?  There would be need for these kinds of laws?  Did you miss a word there?  

But, I have to tell you, that if everyone were like me, we'd be in a world of hurt but for completely different reasons.  We need balance and not the Fox News kind of balance.  We need some of both sides... but if we could minimize the damage done by the extremes of both sides we would be a hell of a lot better off.

Immie


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 6, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



If you can't comprehend simple English, then take it to your teacher and have them help you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 6, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




Not true as a component of the law.  The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation.  Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

Cakes:  If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants.  The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation.  It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party.  If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

KKK:  If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white."  Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race.  If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case.  On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities.  Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer.  In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Sep 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Holy crap. 

Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?

Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html

And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!

Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.

WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

And the bottom line remains the same.  We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil.  And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Explained very well.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And the bottom line remains the same.  We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.
> 
> To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil.  And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.




I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.  Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose.  If that race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it.  Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination?  Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty.  Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government?  Nope.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Explained very well.




Thank you sir.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 7, 2013)

All bakers and other vendors have to do is follow the ruling in the Elane Photography case and they can pick and choose who they want to do business with.   Let the gays go pound sand.  Take their actions with them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the bottom line remains the same.  We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.
> ...



If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it.  Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive.  Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business.  And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason.  It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil.   And none of us should ever condone that.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So you're a bigot if you boycott a bigot?

Just like you're a sinner if you bake a cake for a gay couple?

How do you brainwashed Christians even get out of bed without putting your soul in danger of hellfire?

Parochial bigoted belief systems have no place in the modern world.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You don't get to make that choice.  The New Mexico supreme court has held that people have a right to be as bigoted as they want to be and they can still comply with the law.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



^ that


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You are as entitled to your beliefs and convictions as the next person and you are perfectly within your moral and legal right to choose what merchants you prefer to patronize for any reason.

You are a bigot if you organize a boycott against somebody you consider bigoted because they hold beliefs or convictions you don't share.  You are are far FAR worse bigot than they are because you would harm somebody, hurt somebody, destroy somebody for no other reason than you would enforce your bigotry.

The Founders risked their blood and treasure--all they they had--to give us a country where people are allowed to think and speak and believe as they wish.  Honorable men and women understand that.  Bigots would destroy people because they don't think or believe as the bigot demands they do.

To intentionally destroy somebody because you don't share their beliefs or convictions is unAmerican, hateful, destructive, and evil.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 7, 2013)

There goes Foxy bandying about the term "evil" for the 10th + time


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 7, 2013)

> If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.



Assumes facts not in evidence.




> The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination *has been fought and won* though, and it is high time we stop fighting it.



Assumes facts not in evidence.



> Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.



Assumes facts not in evidence.



> "Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends."



The issue and the law has nothing to do with a customers right to choose who they buy from for any reason.  It's about a private business with a business license serving the general public and who they can or cannot refuse service or products.


> But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason.



A business refusing service or products due to verifiable safety reasons is legal so you're linking that with reasons which are patently against anti-discrimination laws as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest.  But I bet it works in church...



> To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.



Again, for about the tenth time, this issue isn't about someone holding a belief or conviction, it's about putting that belief or conviction into physical action using their business that serves the general public.  If you are a racist you can express those racists beliefs, you can even go to rally's supporting those racists beliefs, both are covered under the 1st Amend.  But if you go to the house of a black family and burn a cross on their lawn, that will breaking the law and you will most likely go to jail.

It boggles my mind how proponents of physical acts of hate and discrimination against a protected class are constantly misrepresented as violations of the 1st amend.  Hold all the bigoted, racist, hateful thoughts you want, discuss them among your peers, but put them into action and you will go to jail or get sued.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



1) The services might not be the same, however, the law is flawed when it comes to an allowance of personal convictions. Lets imagine that the couple in that bakery had been homosexual (male male, female female--whichever), and lets also say that instead of a Christian based theme, they had gay pride regalia smattered all over their website and on the walls of their store. Now, a Christian couple walks in asking for a cake for a wedding, they then proceed to inform the Christian couple that they only serve homosexuals. Would the law still be allowing for their (the homosexuals) convictions? Apparently yes, since in this current political climate they are on the opposite side of the coin. And like it or not, there is an obvious indifference towards the religious in this country being exercised by our government. Given recent Supreme Court rulings, you cannot expect that law to be applied fairly. I favor its repeal for that reason. 

2) In this instance, I cannot say that this would be entirely applicable to this case. Due to established precedent on race relations, and for reasons I advocate wholly, it is unwise to discriminate based on race. Not only that, the Klansman will have over a half a century's worth of legal precedent to throw at the black bakery. The case in 1) isn't so cut an dry, I'm afraid. Personal convictions based on one's faith is a far different thing than convictions based on hatred and propaganda. One is clearly wrong whereas the other has a legitimate and Constitutional reason for his. 

3) There is no doubt the NM ruling set precedent (for which I agree).  But one critical matter is ignored by those advocating punishment of this Christian couple: Constitutional freedom. According to the oft cited First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person has the right to freely express himself, as well as freely practice whatever faith he believes in without any interference from the Governmental body. Given what is said in the Supremacy Clause, such rights trump any state law which may conflict with the person's First Amendment rights When I hear the term "freely" I assume that there are no limits, no strings attached. Given that, I assume that when I hear "free exercise of religion" I assume it to mean that a man of faith can freely reject things that fly in the face of his religious teachings, which should also then apply to this bakery's right to reject making products for or selling products to people who espouse ideals that violate their convictions based on such religious teachings. The biggest problem I have, is that a faith based couple has no ability to stand up for their convictions without being torn down or brought to their knees by their own government, who claims to espouse upholding the people's constitutional rights.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 7, 2013)

The standard set by the NM court is just and reasonable.  It allows vendors to deny services to same sex couples while offering those services, privately, to anyone else.  This should become the law of the land.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> > But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) Such thinking is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Such stalwart thinking is flawed. They call it "freedom of religion" for a good reason. If a person does not want to violate their religious convictions, that should wholly be their right to. On the flip side yes, a gay couple has the same right not to expose themselves to ideals which conflict with their own. That is the essence of the matter.

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of equality and tolerance are the very perpetrators of inequality and intolerance towards other belief sets. Violating someone's right to freely practice their faith, with no constraints bound on them by law is not a misrepresentation of the First Amendment. It is spelled out in clear lettering: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law made thereafter such as public accommodation law (simply based on sexual orientation or religion) would be in direct conflict, since as you saw here, it prevents a person from upholding their own religious convictions or personally held beliefs.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...





TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > > But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason.
> ...



Citing the 1st Amend as an excuse for the religious and religious institutions violating the law is the height of ignorance and desperation.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The standard set by the NM court is just and reasonable.  It allows vendors to deny services to same sex couples while offering those services, privately, to anyone else.  This should become the law of the land.



I would add that New Mexico is also a very blue state when it comes to the state government and a great many of the people.  We are LOADED with the most extreme leftwing types here though we are also predominantly Roman Catholic which, though many Catholics are leftists, does tend to temper the hard core leftists emphasis here somewhat.

But injustices can be handled morally and ethically if our intention is not to destroy and coerce people, but simply to get a point across.

One time years ago in a Texas panhandle small town where we lived at the time, we had just sat down in one of the two restaurants in town.  A well dressed young black man came in to get some lunch and the proprietor denied him service and he left.   My husband and I rather vocally announced that we had changed our mind and would instead patronize the other restaurant down the street.  Most of the other customers followed us out the door.  The restaurant owner got the message and he never ran off another minority person.

THAT was a morally ethical way to handle a situation.  Had we organized a picket and tried to damage the business, however, we would have been as wrong as the restaurant owner.

And yes.  I will continue to use the word EVIL again and again and again.  Those who demand that their own views be allowed with impunity, but who will not allow others their views and would presume to bludgeon them into submission are evil.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Calling me ignorant and desperate is a sign you have no real argument as to why you should prevent a man or woman from upholding their religious convictions. You cannot for the life of you name one single solitary reason why. If you work on the aspect of tolerance and equality as you claim, you would not deny that one critical fact. Pure and simple. Why enact such a colossal double standard when it comes equality and tolerance? Do you think people of faith should or would completely and utterly subject themselves to your wills? In my book, that is not liberty, but tyranny. You would make law to prevent bigotry and intolerance, but in the face of that law you would practice it yourselves. Indeed, it is truly mind boggling to me as to what you think equality and tolerance are.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No it would not.

If the homosexual business owner denied a Christian couple a wedding cake, they also would be in violation of the law and the Christians could file a complaint with the State EEOC.




TemplarKormac said:


> 2) In this instance, I cannot say that this would be entirely applicable to this case. Due to established precedent on race relations, and for reasons I advocate wholly, it is unwise to discriminate based on race. Not only that, the Klansman will have over a half a century's worth of legal precedent to throw at the black bakery. The case in 1) isn't so cut an dry, I'm afraid. Personal convictions based on one's faith is a far different thing than convictions based on hatred and propaganda. One is clearly wrong whereas the other has a legitimate and Constitutional reason for his.



Please cite the legal precedence that applies in Oregon or New Mexico or the Federal Legal precedence that requires shop owners to service political organizations.

As mentioned above, if the shop owners tells the KKK that they won't sell them something because they are white, then the shop owner is in violation of the law - however the shop owner is wholly within the law to disallow the sales based on a political organization.  (As previously mentioned the California Supreme Court has expanded that states Unhur Act to encompass all forms of discrimination, but that is not a standard applicable to other states or nationally.)



TemplarKormac said:


> 3) Even though the NM ruling set precedent, one critical matter is ignored: Constitutional freedom. According to the oft cited First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person has the right to freely express himself, as well as freely practice whatever faith he believes in without any interference from the Governmental body. Given what is said in the Supremacy Clause, such rights trump any state law which may conflict with the person's First Amendment rights When I hear the term "freely" I assume that there are no limits, no strings attached. Given that, I assume that when I hear "free exercise of religion" I assume it to mean that a man of faith can freely reject things that fly in the face of his religious teachings, which should also then apply to this bakery's right to reject making products for or selling products to people who espouse ideals that violate their convictions based on such religious teachings. The biggest problem I have, is that a faith based couple has no ability to stand up for their convictions without being torn down or brought to their knees by their own government, who claims to espouse upholding the people's constitutional rights.



#1 - They are free to exercise their religion.  Under the laws in Oregon, they are not free to conduct discriminatory business practices when the run a business classified as a Public Accommodation.  If their religion bars them from performing certain actions because of their faith, they are free not to offer those services.  However when they do offer those services they must be prepared to provide them equally to all members of the Public for which there are legal protections.

#2 - They are also free, under the law as explained by the NM Supreme Court, to exercise free speech and plaster their business with their religious viewpoint.  However under the law they are not allowed to have their business function in a discriminatory manner.


Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed because they infringe on the property rights of the private business owner.  There does not need to be "special privileges" based on religion not available to other private businesses.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You've accused people of "destroying" this baker a dozen times.  Where do you get off accusing good Christians of destroying this baker simply because they don't want to buy from the bigot.  What the hell?  Did god make you judge and jury to make these judgements?  Since when is picketing and choosing who you want to buy from based on evil bigoted acts some sort of evil bigoted act? WTH?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



And once again you are incapable of honestly representing the point another member has made.

I have no problem with anybody choosing who he or she will patronize.  I have been consistently and 100% clear about that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody trying to force others into not patronizing a business or attempting to destroy somebody purely because the owners hold a belief or conviction that a bigot does not share.  It is evil.


----------



## paperview (Sep 7, 2013)

To repeat: 

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

*We  have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse  him from  compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that  the  State is free to regulate.* On the contrary, the record of more than  a  century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that   proposition.

 And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


 Conscientious  scruples have not,* in the course of the long  struggle for religious  toleration, relieved the individual from  obedience to a general law not  aimed at the promotion or restriction of  religious beliefs.
*
 And, also, too:


*Subsequent decisions have consistently  held that the right of  free exercise does not relieve an individual of  the obligation to comply  with a "valid and neutral law of general  applicability on the ground  that the law proscribes (or prescribes)  conduct that his religion  prescribes (or proscribes)."
*
 And, finally:


*It may fairly be said that leaving  accommodation to the political  process will place at a relative  disadvantage those religious practices  that are not widely engaged in;  but that unavoidable consequence of  democratic government must be  preferred to a system in which each  conscience is a law unto itself or  in which judges weigh the social  importance of all laws against the  centrality of all religious beliefs.

*Don't like it? CHANGE the Public Accommodation Laws.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Because it's against the law?

There is no double standard, if the same gay couple were to refuse service in their business to the same xtian couple due to them being christian OR straight, they would be subject to the same laws and civil actions.

This is so funny.  Xtians who are being bigoted, hateful and legally discriminatory in the conduct of their business actually believe they are the ones being harassed,  intimidated and discriminated against...heheh.

It's called cognitive dissonance and it's rife among the saved and devout.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law.  And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.

But there are some of us who hold the conviction of our beliefs apart from the law and apart from anything the courts or anybody else dictate.  We do not form our beliefs and convictions based on what the law is.  We would choose to base the law on what our beliefs and convictions are.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Calling me ignorant and desperate is a sign you have no real argument as to why you should prevent a man or woman from upholding their religious convictions. You cannot for the life of you name one single solitary reason why. If you work on the aspect of tolerance and equality as you claim, you would not deny that one critical fact. Pure and simple. Why enact such a colossal double standard when it comes equality and tolerance? Do you think people of faith should or would completely and utterly subject themselves to your wills? In my book, that is not liberty, but tyranny. You would make law to prevent bigotry and intolerance, but in the face of that law you would practice it yourselves. Indeed, it is truly mind boggling to me as to what you think equality and tolerance are.



The ignorance you are displaying is beyond pale.

Refusing to serve people based on religious conviction is your right.  However, you give up that right when you open a business that serves the public.   For example, it's against the law to refuse to serve a citizen based on sexual orientation, race, etc. in a public bakery.

Tolerance goes both ways.  However, picketing someone because of the bigoted acts that person performed while harming others is not the same as, harming others based on your belief that god is telling you to harm them.   You don't get to punch someone in the face then cry and scream like a little girl when they decide to defend themselves and punch you back.  You want the ability to urinate on gays and force them to shut up and take their punishment like good little gays.  That's pretty sad.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Who? Who did this evil destruction thing that you keep accusing people of? Who is this anybody?  Who are you accusing?  Why are you making this statement again and again and again?  What attempt to destroy?  Did they bomb him?  What are you talking about?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.

Why _shouldn't_ there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically.  If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Don't feign ignorance. A plethora of gay activist groups and militant gay rights groups badgered their vendors into breaking contracts with them. This in turn dealt a severe if not fatal blow to their revenues as a business. It is an underhanded tactic but an effective one. This, all for standing up for their own convictions.  It is an utterly tyrannical tactic, such tyranny is what our founders fought to smite from history once and for all.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law.  And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.
> 
> But there are some of us who hold the conviction of our beliefs apart from the law and apart from anything the courts or anybody else dictate.  We do not form our beliefs and convictions based on what the law is.  We would choose to base the law on what our beliefs and convictions are.


Translation:  You would make it legal to starve gays out of christian hovels by refusing to sell them goods and services.  Is that your idea of a good law? To repeal our civil rights laws?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right?  Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians 

Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law.  And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.
> ...



That comment is purely asinine and unintelligent on top of being not well thought out. Is base and puerile. Your ignorance of Christians is showing. We won't go as far as to "starve gay people out of Christian hovels." How do you put one foot in front of the other making such radical assumptions about Christians in particular? What secular organizations specialize in feeding the hungry and clothing the needy? As far as I can see from my vantage point, I see a lot of religious organizations exercising more tolerance for gay people that gay people are of Christians. But what I hear from you is that we would willfully kill someone because of our stalwart devotion to our beliefs. 

Should we just repeal the First Amendment? Is that your ideal of good law?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others.  Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



When did I suggest all gays were domestic terrorists? 

Lets have a little history lesson shall we?

The KKK was founded by Democrats after the Civil War. Not only did their values conflict with what the Bible teaches, they outright twisted it to their own will.

And the Nazis are founded on a cult like belief that one day there will be a glorious revival of the Aryan nation, a "reich" as it is known. The Nazis were never once concerned with following the Christian faith, but perverting it, just as the KKK did. 

But there is one particular incident which occurred in 2008 at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan involving a still existent militant gay rights group known as "Bash Back!"

On November 9, 2008 a band of about 30 homosexuals stormed the church during services shouting Jesus was a homo on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. They distributed fliers to passersby, threw condoms at parishioners and set off the fire alarms.

There are gay people out there that espouse these tactics, which include by are not limited to trying to put someone out of business for their beliefs.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others.  Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.



Well, perhaps I ended RKM's little lie that he called an argument. It is evident to me that such people work to smear Christians instead of directly confronting them with a cogent argument.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others.  Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.
> ...



I don't require other members to embrace or endorse or even represent Christianity accurately in order to be honorable members of USMB.   But to intentionally, deliberately, and repeatedly misrepresent the position and argument of others out of pure malice--that is not honorable.   And those who do it are invariably bigots.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



There is no more truer truth than that, Fox. And alas, I do not force my faith on others. The Bible tells me not to, if the person's heart will not allow them to, "dust off thy feet" and move on as it says.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Let's not forget it was white, southern xstians who engaged in, supported and propagated slavery and justified it in their churches via bible scripture.

Slavery was perfectly okay by god in the OT.

Xtians never learn, the always have to be dragged kicking and screaming...sometimes suing, into morality and virtue.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

And then of course there is the non sequitur, straw man, and red herring arguments that some will always throw into the mix and completely ignore the point of the O.P.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Case in point.

Since when is it okay to force someone into adhering to YOUR morals and virtues? Is it not gay people who say that Christians are forcing their morals and virtues on THEM? How bemusing.

Slavery was way different in the Bible than what you read about in the Civil War. Perhaps you should do a little research. RKM knows what I'm talking about. He made the same false accusation and was pounded into the ground for it.

And Democrats, for which I know you espouse as one, were the ones who founded the KKK, and encouraged open discrimination against Blacks as far back as the Civil War. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach to be openly discriminate to someone. "Love one another" it says. Another good example is the story of the Good Samaritan.  In Jesus' time Samaritans were viewed unfavorably. Given that two people (a priest and a Levite) passed him by and offered no help, the Samaritan was the one who saved his life.  This teaches that no matter who or what someone is, you help them in a time of need.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right?  Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians
> 
> Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.



The Homosexual Agenda Revealed!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



World Watcher couldn't argue his way out of a kindergarten class full of deaf mutes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Does it change the fundamental fact that you are wrong when you said a photographer cannot be forced to attend a wedding they objected to? 

Doesn't that make you wrong, period?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



If it was that simple the baker could tell the couple that they won't bake the cake because it violates their free speech right to not say something nice about gay weddings. The fact that the court actually said that they can't do that proves that the court was arguing in circles to justify something wrong.

Which is why the law is wrong, period.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the bottom line remains the same.  We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.
> ...



Why does everyone keep pretending that the days of widespread discrimination were not enforced by the government, even if the business objected? It was *AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW* to treat blacks the same as whites.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



How the fuck did you get that out of what she said?

What makes it acceptable for you to force your religion on others?

How the fuck do you walk a straight line?

Your beliefs have no place in the ancient, modern, or the future world.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Citing the 1st Amend as an excuse for the religious and religious institutions violating the law is the height of ignorance and desperation.



Not in the same universe that contains you.


----------



## paperview (Sep 7, 2013)

When the first Public Accommodation Laws were passed (CRA64), there was a  great deal of religious belief (mostly in the south, but also in other  parts of the country) that  "race-mixing" was directly in conflict with  their religion.  Indeed it was against the law to marry another race in a  number of states.

In fact, the judge who upheld Virginias anti-miscegenation statute in _Loving v. Virginia_ cited the bible and noted God had put the races on separate continents as proof* that he did not intend for the races to mix.  *It  was literally an appeal to divine authority. Thankfully it was not many    years (three to be exact) the Supreme Court would find laws against  interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

Nonetheless,  it was most certainly a "deeply held religious conviction"  to some (and still is)  that would allow them to discriminate in  exactly the same way as the couple in this instance -- that is, a baker  refusing to "be a part of this wedding." 

How many would uphold  that religious belief as Supreme today?  With the baker being allowed to  say "I don't believe in mixed race marriages, to me it is a sin?" How has it worked for those who have tried to use it? 

As  I noted in an earlier post of mine, bigots are free to  discriminate,  they however need to find a way to be clever about it.  In Elane  photography, for example, just saying "Sorry, booked up" or some other  reason to not produce evidence you are actively discriminating. Same  with the bakers. 

I'm certain it goes on all the time today, and did in the past for the ones against "race-mixing" and integration for _religious reasons._  So the message is clear:  you want to be a bigot, be one.  Just be clever about it.
This does not violate your religious principles.

Unless your purpose is to find an excuse to insult and offend those potential customers you think have cherry-picked as _sinners._

Which at its base, I think, is exactly what some of these _religious objectors_ want to do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> To repeat:
> 
> Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!



Let me point out why you are still an idiot.



paperview said:


> *We  have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse  him from  compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that  the  State is free to regulate.* On the contrary, the record of more than  a  century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that   proposition.



There is a difference between laws that prohibit an action  from laws that require an action. The laws you are trying to defend require an action.



paperview said:


> And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
> 
> 
> Conscientious  scruples have not,* in the course of the long  struggle for religious  toleration, relieved the individual from  obedience to a general law not  aimed at the promotion or restriction of  religious beliefs.
> ...



Since I am arguing that public accommodation laws are wrong, and your only defense is that they are the law, you are an idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law.  And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.
> ...



In a word, yes.


----------



## paperview (Sep 7, 2013)

From here I would like to point to an excellent article written in the Wake Forest Law Review, which I highly recommend.  A few snips follow:



> The law sends messages.  The antidiscrimination law sends a message that  the racial caste system, or a similar one based on sexual orientation,  is wrong and illegal.  Applying the law to particular acts of  discrimination emphasizes the message.  The message sent by allowing  religious exemptions is that discrimination is wrong and illegal except  when it is right and legal.  It is illegal and wrong unless your deeply  held religious beliefs support the caste system and, by one version,  unless the victim of discrimination can find a convenient alternative.   The right to discriminate can convey a message (at least in certain  circumstances) that it is right to do so.





> General application is important.  What would the result have been in  the segregated South if exemptions based on religious convictions had  been in place?  The result would have been even worse if all moral  objectors to integration were also included.





> *Conclusion*
> 
> The best way to think about the claim that gay marriage requires  expanded exemptions from existing laws for religious discriminators is  in the larger context of both race and gender discrimination and in the  larger context of discrimination against gays outside of gay marriageas  well as in the case of discrimination against people in same-sex  marriages.  The racial analogy may help some see why the harms of  discrimination against gays are substantial and why broad exemptions are  problematic.  If so, this Essay will have been a modest success.


A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays | Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context | Wake Forest Law Review

^ Just some thought food for munching.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> When the first Public Accommodation Laws were passed (CRA64), there was a  great deal of religious belief (mostly in the south, but also in other  parts of the country) that  "race-mixing" was directly in conflict with  their religion.  Indeed it was against the law to marry another race in a  number of states.
> 
> In fact, the judge who upheld Virginias anti-miscegenation statute in _Loving v. Virginia_ cited the bible and noted God had put the races on separate continents as proof* that he did not intend for the races to mix.  *It  was literally an appeal to divine authority. Thankfully it was not many    years (three to be exact) the Supreme Court would find laws against  interracial marriages were unconstitutional.
> 
> ...



Funny how I am the bigot because I want everyone to be free.

Show me anything in the Bible that backs up the assertion that God wanted people to stay separate. That belief was not religious in nature, it was based on what was then considered science. I suggest you look up eugenics, but only if you are prepared to have your entire universe upset. Alternatively, you could remain a bigot, and refuse to let history and facts stand in the way of your bigotry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> From here I would like to point to an excellent article written in the Wake Forest Law Review, which I highly recommend.  A few snips follow:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see you have been reading Seawytch's posts. At least you aren't trying to use this as an argument to prove that churches cannot be sued.

For the record, I agree with the article, there should not be a religious exemption to discrimination laws, they should all be ruled violations of human rights and forever abolished.


----------



## paperview (Sep 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.

That you disparage with such infantile retorts as this only reinforces, for all to see, the caricature you have become, highlights the impotence of your argument, and shows how you treat people who have given you the utmost respect.

Which I, for one, cannot muster, nor do I think many here can.


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Hey. Come on now. That was a low blow, and for no good reason. I don't agree with WW on many things, but I do recognize that he can put forth a solid argument.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1.  Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2.  Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3.  Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God  has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4.  Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?



[DISCLAIMER:  I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner.  As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general.  My inquery is really:  Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]

>>>>


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the bottom line remains the same.  We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.
> ...



If a business entity decided to refuse service to people of sexual orientation, color of ones skin or other reasons, that would allow me, as a consumer to know their bias and refuse to patronize the establishment.

The government is a different animal and should never be allowed to discriminate.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 7, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> There goes Foxy bandying about the term "evil" for the 10th + time



This coming from the guy who in every thread brings out the word "hate." Amusing.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.





BDBoop said:


> Hey. Come on now. That was a low blow, and for no good reason. I don't agree with WW on many things, but I do recognize that he can put forth a solid argument.




Thank you both very much.

I learned as I worked toward becoming a Master Training Specialist in the Navy that the best understanding of how something works is when you attempt to explain it to others.  Same with debate, sometimes you teach, sometime you learn, and sometimes you learn to ignore assholes and just slide over their posts.  When you learn to just consider the source and let things slide by, then life is much less stressful.









>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> If a business entity decided to refuse service to people of sexual orientation, color of ones skin or other reasons, that would allow me, as a consumer to know their bias and refuse to patronize the establishment.
> 
> The government is a different animal and should never be allowed to discriminate.




Exactly, this is not the pre-1960's with government law which actually encourage discrimination.  Society has changed a lot in the last couple of generations.  I can understand the desire for big government intervention from past generations (not that I agree with it, but understand).  

Consumers have much more access to information now then ever before to make their choices about where to spend their hard earned dollars.


>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person.  A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person.  A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.

A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same.   If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests.   He should otherwise accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.

The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior.   But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.

You see how that works?  Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business.  That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner.  But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business.  That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Did I say he wasn't polite? Being polite does not give him the ability to actually argue a point, does it? My problem with him is that he wants to be "fair," and likes to pretend that his understanding of a court decision trumps that of real lawyers. On top of that, he refuses to actually take a position, articulate it,  and defend it. He says he wants public accommodation laws repealed, but has never once argued against them that I have seen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



He doesn't argue. He explains why everyone else is right, but he never actually argues.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.
> ...



Understanding how something works is one thing, defending your positions is another. You don't argue or debate, you just state positions. Until you actually engage in an argument, and defend your position, I will continue to point out to anyone that thinks your policy statements amount to an argument that they are wrong.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



#1 - I didn't say the repair shop owner was a Christian.

#2 - It which religion the individual ascribes to important in determining whether they can refuse service or goods based on religious grounds?

#3 - The question was "Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?".  If the repair shop owner offers services to customer's should the by able to claim a "special privilege" for a religious exemption for serving blacks?

#4 - If the auto shop provides road side repair can they say no in shop service for black and no road side service for blacks yet provide those services to whites?

#5 - The "Cockfighting" is a strawman not part of the question, it is an obvious throw in to deflect from the core question which has to do with declining service based on race and not based on illegal activity.



Foxfyre said:


> A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person.  A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.



#1 - Again not the question.

#2 - If the plumber routinely applies serives in the homes of customers (as plumbers normally do), can the plumber refuse to provide those services based on the religion of the toilet's home owner.

#3 - You realize that people don't normally remove their toilets and bring them to the plumbers shop, right?



Foxfyre said:


> A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same.   If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests.   He should accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.



#1 - The Cab Driver example comes from a real world example where Muslim cab drivers were refusing to take customers with dogs or who were carrying alcohol because of religious objections.  Their state objections was not that they were allergic to dogs or that they were afraid that other customers were allergic to dogs.  Their stated objection was it violated their faith.

#2 - Again with the strawman about dangerous neighborhoods.  That was not a condition of the question because it is irrelevant.  If the fare is being refused because of danger in the destination, that is wholly different question.  The cab drivers in the case stated it was about religious objections to the dogs or alcohol.



Foxfyre said:


> The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior.   But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.



#1 - Again with the strawman, it has nothing to do with pick-ups or delivery.  It was about being required to rent the room based on strictly on country of origin.



Foxfyre said:


> You see how that works?  Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business.  That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner.  But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business.  That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.



#1 - In many of the replies above you use the word "should", which isn't the question.  The question is, is it OK for the government allow "special priveleges" to anyone that claimes a religious belief about something, therefore they are exempt from the law.  Such a religious exemption would apply to any "personally held religous belief".  In other works anyone can be exempt from the laws for whatever reason really exists, they just have to claim a "special privilege" by claiming a religion based exclude.  (Note: "religion based" does not equal Christian based.)

#2 - You may think that the location is a smart dodge, but legally it has no bearing.  If the business offers services and those services are at another location, the business under the law cannot offer different services in a discriminatory manner when their business routinely provides services at other locations.



>>>>


----------



## Mertex (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> There's a big big difference between saying you won't do something because someone is gay, and not doing it because it violates the religious teachings of your faith. That's one critical thing all of you pro gay folks missed.


Where in the Bible does it say you can mistreat people, call them names, just because they don't ascribe to your religious beliefs?  Didn't Jesus tell you to love your enemy?  To love your neighbor as yourself?  Treating people equally does not violate any religious teachings that I know of, especially not Christianity.



> If I openly discriminated against gays, I would not be a good Christian. I don't stop them from enjoying the rights I have, the things I have, the freedom that I have. They are Americans just as I am. But I will not in a quintillion years violate the teachings of my faith just to sate the whims of a homosexual. I can be friendly and tolerant of them, but I will *not capitulate to them.*


Gays are not trying to force you to be gay, just to agree to be fair.
The teachings of your faith apply to you, and not for you to apply to others.  If you think being homosexual is a sin, then don't be a homosexual, but discriminating against them because you think their lifestyle is a sin is not what Jesus taught.  Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourself, so would you deny yourself what you want to deny them?  



> But then again, you don't mind placing unfair obligations on people, do you?


You seem to pick and choose which teachings of the faith you want to obey.  Telling other posters to "fuck off" is certainly not something that Jesus teaches, yet you don't seem to have a problem doing it.

Re: fuck off
Quote: Originally Posted by TemplarKormac
Quote: Originally Posted by Days
Quote: Originally Posted by TemplarKormac
Hi, you have received -1264 reputation points from TemplarKormac.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
dude, fk off

Matthew 12:36 ESV 

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 7, 2013)

so-called "Christians" who persecute Gays but leave alone drunks, thieves, liars, cheats, are not real Christians.

Their religion is HYPOCRISY.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


The thing is this,  when people invoke God or anything else to try and justify their position on what they believe in life, then it is up to the people who are in the direct line of fire of this invoking, to investigate their claims in which they make thus using God or anything else in ways that may not be accurate at all when they are doing so in this way, so it is always good to do ones homework on these people and their speaking's. The Bible in many cases may not even represent them as they had spoken or quoted it that way, so it is always best to check it out for one self in life.

What I notice is that people don't want to investigate what the belief is or what the bibles says accurately about things, and this in order to counter lies or reveal perpetrators if that is what they might find in those whom may be miss-using the Lords name or invoking it for their cause or reasons for their cause in certain ways, and I think that they don't because they want to use the ignorant persons words against the whole group somehow. Home work must be done against those for whom might make a ridiculous claim in which the Bible doesn't even back up, and then on top of that make it wrongfully without challenge of.   They don't do their homework because they want to use it to tear down the entire belief system or group by way of even one individual doing wrong in the groups name, and for whom had then acted out vocally or in ways that could potentially give ammunition to those whom have an agenda against an entire group in which is their hopes to then try and wipe out a specific belief system in which they hate by putting certain people out in the spotlight, especially if the belief system they hate speaks against the very created cultures and/or actions in which should be spoken against righteously or by righteous people, if those cultures, trends or actions are harmful or hurtful to a belief system that does quite well without having to deal with problems that would therefore put the belief system in jeopardy or grave danger, and in which it could potentially do to it by allowing any and everyone into it (even ones enemy without knowledge of) if so be the case where this happens or has happened in the past.

Always remember the Trojan Horse story, and it will help always to understand the ways in which our enemies seek to infiltrate and destroy us and our belief systems.

People miss-representing belief systems or cultures, and good things by high jacking them for their own twisted thinking coupled with their actions committed wrongfully upon, are coming in droves anymore in this nation, and so this places all good at risk, especially when we see also groups adapting or attaching themselves to other legitimate causes, and all in order to make their group or cause even more powerful when this happens. This then gives them more accessibility to areas in which they were never allowed to have access to before, other than by order of an ignorant out of touch government, and this because of their anti-beliefs in a system in which they desired to enter into, yet only wanted the access to it because their attempt is to destroy it once they are granted access to it. All systems should be on high alert in this nation and around the world now, because evil and bad are on the move as each line that had been established over the years are subject to now fall all because of.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...




Are you assuming that the Bible would be the only basis for such "special privileges" to be exempt from Public Accommodation laws?  Remember the individual in the post I responded to said "Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only."

A "persons religious (or otherwise) conviction" isn't necessarily measured against some checklist.  It is the person's individual faith, belief, or conviction that is the standard - therefore anyone can claim anything they want and be exempt from secular law just by claiming that is their personal religious belief.

To qualify for the exemption, must it be a belief based solely on the Bible?  Other religions or religious beliefs need not apply?  Will the government then, since they are the ones that apply secular law, be the ones defining what is and is not valid?


>>>>


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 7, 2013)

> "This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."



Kevin Swanson, Right-Wing Pastor: Gay Couples Should Be Told To Die On Their Wedding Day

Gee, what a classy guy.


----------



## paperview (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> > "This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There ya go. A pastor...singing _Kick 'em in the Nuts For Jesus._


----------



## Mertex (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> > "This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That jerk gives all Christians a bad name.  I suppose some on here would probably agree with that jerk and think Jesus demands that type of behavior.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Thank you for that interpretation.  It makes sense... Sucks, but still makes sense.

Immie


----------



## BDBoop (Sep 7, 2013)

Mertex said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > > "This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."
> ...



He's about as Christian as Westboro Baptist Church is.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> To repeat:
> 
> Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!
> 
> ...



Call me vindictive (I would say obstinate), but you would not want my services after you forced me to do something I did not want to do.  It might be stupid and I might just get in trouble with the courts, but if I were the baker in this case about five minutes before the ceremony began, someone, most likely one of the participants in the ceremony would "accidentally" get knocked into the cake.

I can be pretty damned evil when forced to do something I don't want to do.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 7, 2013)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I would like to quote the first sentence of this post for truth.  WW was, and always is very thoughtful and polite in his posts.  Just as he was in this discussion.

I disagree with QW in his statements about WW.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



It seems to me that this is exactly what WW has been saying all along.  He stated, "the law says..." And then in several posts gave a disclaimer stating that he felt these laws should be repealed.  I don't understand why you seem to be attacking him on this issue.

Immie


----------



## Mertex (Sep 7, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > To repeat:
> ...


Well, if he is a Christian as he claims, and did something like that, I'm sure that God would not give him a gold star.



> I can be pretty damned evil when forced to do something I don't want to do.
> 
> Immie



Unfortunately, there's a lot of people that are that way, hopefully they don't claim to be Christian.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 7, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



It seems that FF doesn't understand that the baker made the claim that they "didn't bake cake for homosexual/same-sex weddings".  He definitely defined his reason, and that is what is against the law, to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  Had nothing to do with having to deliver the cake.  But as WW pointed out, if they are delivering cakes to heterosexual couples, then they are discriminating by making an exception.

Doesn't seem that hard to understand.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 7, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Well, for the record, I have repeatedly stated, that I would have served this couple as I believe Jesus would as well.  My statement is that if you force me to do something I don't want to do, that little devil on my shoulder is going to win out and I am going to do something I should not do.  I am a sinner.

Now what would that "something" be?  An example might be requiring me to participate in a KKK rally or maybe a satanic worship where a cat is sacrificed.  Something like that would do it.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 7, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Seems to me, you have the mistaken impression that Christians are not sinful.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Gays are not trying to force you to be gay, just to agree to be fair.
> The teachings of your faith apply to you, and not for you to apply to others.  If you think being homosexual is a sin, then don't be a homosexual, but discriminating against them because you think their lifestyle is a sin is not what Jesus taught.  Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as yourself, so would you deny yourself what you want to deny them?



If it was about being fair they wouldn't be suing people for not photographing their weddings, nor would any gay person on the planet be threatening to sue churches for not letting them get marriaed there. Therefore, your argument is false, and you are full of shit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> The thing is this,  when people invoke God or anything else to try and justify their position on what they believe in life, then it is up to the people who are in the direct line of fire of this invoking, to investigate their claims in which they make thus using God or anything else in ways that may not be accurate at all when they are doing so in this way, so it is always good to do ones homework on these people and their speaking's. The Bible in many cases may not even represent them as they had spoken or quoted it that way, so it is always best to check it out for one self in life.



Why are you the judge of other people's beliefs? Do I also get to delve into why you are telling me my beliefs don't meet an arbitrary standard? Is the Bible the only source of religious instruction on the planet? What are you going to do when you run into a Muslim who talks about something that is not in the Bible, tell them it doesn't count because the only book you ever heard of is the Bible?



beagle9 said:


> What I notice is that people don't want to investigate what the belief is or what the bibles says accurately about things, and this in order to counter lies or reveal perpetrators if that is what they might find in those whom may be miss-using the Lords name or invoking it for their cause or reasons for their cause in certain ways, and I think that they don't because they want to use the ignorant persons words against the whole group somehow. Home work must be done against those for whom might make a ridiculous claim in which the Bible doesn't even back up, and then on top of that make it wrongfully without challenge of.   They don't do their homework because they want to use it to tear down the entire belief system or group by way of even one individual doing wrong in the groups name, and for whom had then acted out vocally or in ways that could potentially give ammunition to those whom have an agenda against an entire group in which is their hopes to then try and wipe out a specific belief system in which they hate by putting certain people out in the spotlight, especially if the belief system they hate speaks against the very created cultures and/or actions in which should be spoken against righteously or by righteous people, if those cultures, trends or actions are harmful or hurtful to a belief system that does quite well without having to deal with problems that would therefore put the belief system in jeopardy or grave danger, and in which it could potentially do to it by allowing any and everyone into it (even ones enemy without knowledge of) if so be the case where this happens or has happened in the past.



What I know for a fact is that no one who has ever tried to tell me that I don't know what the Bible says knows what the Bible says. Want to prove me right once again?



beagle9 said:


> Always remember the Trojan Horse story, and it will help always to understand the ways in which our enemies seek to infiltrate and destroy us and our belief systems.



The Trojan horse had nothing to do with the belief systems of anyone. 



beagle9 said:


> People miss-representing belief systems or cultures, and good things by high jacking them for their own twisted thinking coupled with their actions committed wrongfully upon, are coming in droves anymore in this nation, and so this places all good at risk, especially when we see also groups adapting or attaching themselves to other legitimate causes, and all in order to make their group or cause even more powerful when this happens. This then gives them more accessibility to areas in which they were never allowed to have access to before, other than by order of an ignorant out of touch government, and this because of their anti-beliefs in a system in which they desired to enter into, yet only wanted the access to it because their attempt is to destroy it once they are granted access to it. All systems should be on high alert in this nation and around the world now, because evil and bad are on the move as each line that had been established over the years are subject to now fall all because of.



Like you just misrepresented the Trojan Horse as an allegory for someone's beliefs?

Pathetic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Because he keeps defending the law, and not defending his position. That makes his posts defense of the laws he claims to disagree with, and not a proper interpretation of the law in most cases.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It also doesn't seem hard to understand that bakers should be able to not take any business, for any reason.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Sorry, I completely disagree with you.  He has stated what the law says and he has followed that up with statements that he disagrees with the law... and here is the real kicker, he has even stated why he disagrees with the law.

In this case, you are wrong.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 7, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I disagree with the law also, and understand it thoroughly, which is why I keep shoving the law down the throats of everybody that keeps telling me that it doesn't violate anyone's rights by existing. In fact, I am the person in this thread that brought up the law to prove that Seawytch doesn't know what she is talking about when she says churches cannot be sued. Yet, for some reason, the only people that have a problem with my posts are the idiots that think I oppose same sex marraige. 

Disagree with the facts all you want, WW is defending the law.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




I am not arguing for or against a law.  I am arguing for a principle that the law SHOULD protect and defend whether it actually does or not.  And I brought in the Christian component only because you did.

I don't take my moral values from the law.  I will continue to express my convictions that the Founders intended that the law protect the unalienable rights of the people and reflect the society the people want rather than dictate what the people must be.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




#1 - Incorrect, no where in any of the examples (and since they have been quoted you will note that none have been changed) did I site "Christians", as a matter of fact I included "God (or Gods)" in most of the examples the exception being one specifically involving Muslims (where I used the singular God instead).

#2 - The only place in the post where it mentioned Christians was "In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?" where I was asking if the same standard applied to non-Christian beliefs.  (That standard being that all someone had to do was claim their individual faith barred something, and therefore they should receive the same special treatment under the law.


>>>>


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> > "This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gee, not how good Christians act. I'll be the first one to tell you. So if you're thinking of judging us all based on people like that, you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 7, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Sorry, I completely disagree with you.  He has stated what the law says and he has followed that up with statements that he disagrees with the law... and here is the real kicker, he has even stated why he disagrees with the law.
> 
> In this case, you are wrong.
> 
> Immie



Don't worry Immie, some people don't understand that you can discuss how a law functions, why a law was created, and the impact of such a law without agreeing that the law should be in place.

Some people are so wrapped up with justifying a religious exemption for the law they miss the larger issue.  When the argument is, which some of the most ardent protesters here seem to be sayings, (and I paraphrase) "Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing."  What they mean in general is that they support big government and it's justification for Public Accommodation laws, they just don't think their brand of discrimination should be covered by such laws.  It relinquishes then the very principal that it is a function of government.

The true issue, IMHO, is that it is a private property issue and that private businesses in general should not be subject to such laws based on property ownership.  There shouldn't be "special privileges" just for claims of a religious view.  If such exemptions are granted then anyone can claim their personal religious views are such-n-such and be exempt from the law.


>>>>


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:
> 
> 1.  Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?
> 
> ...



Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.

That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.


----------



## paperview (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Don't worry Immie, some people don't understand that you can discuss how a law functions, why a law was created, and the impact of such a law without agreeing that the law should be in place.
> 
> Some people are so wrapped up with justifying a religious exemption for the law they miss the larger issue.  When the argument is, which some of the most ardent protesters here seem to be sayings, (and I paraphrase) *"Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing."*  What they mean in general is that they support big government and it's justification for Public Accommodation laws, they just don't think their brand of discrimination should be covered by such laws.  It relinquishes then the very principal that it is a function of government.
> 
> ...


Quoting...to sandwich your words around a perfect _gored ox_ post.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> #1 - I didn't say the repair shop owner was a Christian.
> 
> #2 - In which religion the individual ascribes to important in determining whether they can refuse service or goods based on religious grounds?
> 
> ...



As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Heh. They got punked.
> 
> Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter
> 
> ...



Pretty sure they rejected the wedding because it contradicted THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS, not because it contradicted any conservative political platform, let alone one as perceived by the left.  Who are you to tell them what their personal beliefs have to be?


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that tolerance is really shining through.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Noomi said:


> It's their own fault. People have the right to refuse to buy from them, which they did, and they are complaining about it?
> Get over it. Your business closed its doors because of your backward opinions, and that vile Facebook post didn't help matters.



It's "people exercising their right to refuse to buy" when assholes call their vendors and issue threats?  Really?  That's what passes for a free market where you come from?

Oh, I forgot.  That probably IS what passes for freedom in that benighted pisshole you call a country.

Get over it.  Their business closed because leftists are intolerant, bigoted, close-minded, tyrannical, jack-booted, hypocritical asshats who want to feel morally superior to everyone else without ever doing the work of actually acquiring a moral standard.

I'm just WAITING for the next time a homosexual (I'm certainly not calling these humorless, self-absorbed pieces of shit "gay") starts whining at me about "tolerance".  I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule Corollary:  Treat others the way you want to be treated, and then get treated the way you've demonstrated you want.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Nope. Don't have to like, just have to abide by the law.



Christians don't have much of a history of abiding by evil and immoral laws.  Just ask the Nazis and Soviets.

I was almost prepared to respect you for that whole nanosecond that you felt ashamed of the abysmal way your colleagues acted . . . but then you found an excuse to make it okay for them to act ten times worse than the behavior they were stamping their Gucci heels about, so now I'm back to thinking you're a puswad.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Noomi said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Don't have to like, just have to abide by the law.
> ...



You think that's hypocrisy?  Maybe your definitions are screwed because they don't speak real English where you are.  Let me tell you what REAL hypocrisy is.

"You don't want to sell me a wedding cake.  You're hateful and intolerant.  I'm going to get all my friends to make death threats and scare your vendors, so that you go out of business!"

THAT, my dear dimwit, is hypocrisy.  You don't demand that someone else "tolerate" you by putting them out of business.

I'm just waiting for you to tell me that only Noomi-approved "correct" thinking deserves to be tolerated.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Noomi said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> > Do fags have to abide by the law?
> ...



Shockingly, NORMAL people - you know, the ones with moral standards - would consider it wrong to send people messages like People like you will burn in HELL, you racist pigs and Do everyone a favor and fall off a cliff" and Honey it would take a lot to make your ugly a** look good! You are ugly inside and out! and Maybe your god will send you some cat food to eat when you are living on the street?

Decent people - which apparently is a designation that doesn't include homosexuals, and thank you all for clarifying this for all time - just go find another bakery that WANTS to be part of their ceremony, rather than trying to force people to participate.  Do they also have the right to frogmarch a church choir in to sing for them?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> When gay bars, clubs, coffee shops and restaurants refuse entry to women( pun not intended) should women boycott those venues?
> Is there a law preventing such elitist segregation?
> Reports of increasing assaults in PTown MA against the local fishing community.
> The breeders are being forced out.



You have gay bars that ban women?  Really?  All the gay bars around here appreciate the large amount of money they make off of women who like hanging around with gay men and not getting hit on.  And most of them are gay/lesbian mixed clientele, anyway.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Individual said:
> 
> 
> > Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> ...



Actually, the state of Oregon is still pursuing an investigation against the Kleins for violating their "anti-discrimination" law, which apparently requires that you have no right to decide for whom you wish to work.  And it is this blatantly Unconstitutional law that empowered the homosexual gutter trash of Oregon to hound and harass and threaten these people, instead of just going and finding another bakery the way REAL people would have.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> They are closing the retail outlet, not going out of business.   What this baker is doing is exactly what she should be doing, selling her goods privately.   She won't lose any customers, they will still buy from her with direct sales.  She will find stores and other outlets for sales.  Meanwhile, she will have no overhead.    The gay couple STILL could not force her to bake their cake and now the baker won't have the question come up anymore.  She kept her business and her freedom of religion.  It turned out exactly the way it should.



No, the way it SHOULD have turned out would be for the lesbians to act like human beings instead of twats on legs and just take their business to someone who WANTED to participate in their wedding, instead of trying to bludgeon people into approving of them.  If the dumb bitches REALLY believed that their life choices were normal and acceptable and okay, they wouldn't feel the need to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.  Way to telegraph to the world that YOU think you're a deviant, too.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> A business should cater to those with money in their pockets and keep their  religion checked at the church door.



A business should be whatever the people who own it want it to be, not what YOU think they should be.  Who are you to dictate that everyone has to be about soulless greed and profit?  Thought you libs didn't like that shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> This is just like limbaugh/beck losing listeners and just like the increase of business to Chick filet.
> 
> Don't blame gays for this. People can choose where to spend their money.
> 
> Also note that this is not gays boycotting. There aren't enough gays in the entire country to make up for straights who simply stopped shopping there.



Apparently, there ARE enough gays in Oregon to make people afraid of violence if they don't withdraw their business, though.  I know you'd love to pretend that your ilk didn't just reveal itself as vicious, intolerant bigots in giant, Day-Glo lettering, but you don't get to pretend there were no threats and intimidation.

This is who your side is, and this is my answer when you whine about how you need to be "tolerated":  You get what you put out, so burn in hell, pig.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.  I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc.  But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.
> ...



Yeah, well, I have news for the flip-floppy bleeding hearts on the right who want to say, "Oh, we should just let gays have marriage/civil unions.  It's JUST about them being in love and being together!"  No, the push for legalized gay marriage is about THIS.  It's about doing EXACTLY this to anyone and everyone who DARES to publicly diverge from their party line.

I don't give a tin shit what sort of private arrangements people make in regards to their relationships, so long as everyone is legal and consenting, but THIS is why I oppose giving out legal sanctions willy-nilly:  because I know that it's just an attempt to oppress everyone else.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Oh, but you were so quick to believe it when you first saw it, because it enabled you to ignore what utter, disgusting filth your side of the argument had proven itself to be.

Guess THAT kneejerk went a bit wrong, huh?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > novasteve said:
> ...



So you think people should exercise their First Amendment rights by lying, rather than by simply claiming them as their rights?  Interesting.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I don't even have a problem, necessarily, with contacting vendors and saying, "Are you aware that this company does X?  I don't like that behavior, and I intend to take my business elsewhere, and I think you should, too."  I have a BIG problem with behaving in a way that makes vendors literally afraid to do business with someone.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> sure and why don't we go back to refusing black people a ride on the front of the bus while we are at it.



That was actually the government, not the private bus companies.  Maybe you should learn your history before advocating that the government should tell businesses how to run.

Or maybe you should just shut your flapping piehole and stop trying to sound like you have any sort of moral high ground at all.  You want to evoke civil rights?  Really?  YOU?!  You're on the side of people who sent these folks' children messages like "burn in hell".  That's YOUR "civil rights".  That's YOUR tolerance.  That's who you are.  You have NOTHING to say to any of us on the subject.  You own this.  Enjoy it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Yes, rather than having a country that actually espouses freedom of speech and religion, as in the Constitution, we should have a country where people hide and lie to avoid the wrath of the tyrannical minority.  What a good idea.

God forbid anyone suggest that the lesbians get the fuck over themselves and find another bakery.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 7, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



What are the laws in that state on equal access?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 7, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> so-called "Christians" who persecute Gays but leave alone drunks, thieves, liars, cheats, are not real Christians.
> 
> Their religion is HYPOCRISY.



Not to mention child molesters and rapists.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > sure and why don't we go back to refusing black people a ride on the front of the bus while we are at it.
> ...



Thomas Sowell actually offers some very interesting history on this subject.

_Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place?
"Racism" some will say -- and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries. 

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem.
*Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races. *

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.

*It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process.* Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process. 

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote. 

The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. *Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts. *

These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. *Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply. *_

So maybe what the right has said all along is true, and it really IS better to let the free market and private enterprise work these things out than to get the government involved in trying to force everyone to comply with whatever mandate they currently think they have?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

syrenn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I can't imagine wanting someone to participate in my wedding who didn't want to do so.  But then, I don't secretly think I'm weird and aberrant and deviant, and have a desperate need to prove to myself that I'm normal by forcing other people to offer me approbation.  I suppose that changes one's perspective.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



But not by way of harassment, threats, and intimidation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

shintao said:


> eagle7_31 said:
> 
> 
> > TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News
> ...



_Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.

"They would tell our vendors, If you dont stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down._

It's in the article.  You have trouble reading, or are you just the same sort of gutter trash as the Oregon homosexuals and friends?  Do tell us about YOUR commitment to tolerance.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.
> ...



Walter Williams:

_Here's a question: What is the true test of one's commitment to freedom of expression? Is it when one permits others to express ideas with which he agrees? Or is it when he permits others to express ideas he finds deeply offensive? I'm betting that most people would wisely answer that it's the latter, and I'd agree. How about this question: What is the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association? Is it when people permit others to freely associate in ways of which they approve? Or is it when they permit others to freely associate in ways they deem despicable? I'm sure that might be a considerable dispute about freedom of association compared with the one over freedom of expression. To be for freedom in either case requires that one be brave enough to accept the fact that some people will make offensive expressions and associate in offensive ways.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, held that laws banning interracial marriages violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. Thus, Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws not only violated the U.S. Constitution but also violated the basic human right of freedom of association.

Now let's ask ourselves: Would Virginia's laws have been more acceptable if, instead of banning interracial marriages, they had mandated interracial marriages? Any decent person would find such a law just as offensive  and for the same reason: It would violate freedom of association. Forced association is not freedom of association.

What if you wanted to deal with me but I didn't want to deal with you? To be more concrete, suppose I own a private company and I'm looking to hire an employee. You want to deal with me, but I don't want to deal with you. My reasons might be that you're white or a Catholic or ugly or a woman or anything else that I find objectionable. Should I be forced to hire you? You say, "Williams, that's illegal employment discrimination." You're absolutely right, but it still violates peaceable freedom of association._


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

bendog said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It's EXTREMELY onerous.  The government has no business interfering in freedom of association, either by banning it or mandating it.  Let individuals and the market sort it out for themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

bianco said:


> eagle7_31 said:
> 
> 
> > TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News
> ...



Since it's not YOUR business, I'm pretty sure YOUR "moral opinion" is irrelevant.  Likewise, your judgement of what's "all good".

Now, if one turns ordering a wedding cake into a "morals crusade", and expresses that "morality" by issuing threats and intimidation, one is a shit-covered piece of garbage, as is any mealy-mouthed politically correct loser who tries to defend that behavior or gloss over it as "the consequences".

Also, it's past time you people learn to have your own moral compass, rather than looking to the government to provide it for you.  It makes you even more stupid and vile than you were to start with.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

hazlnut said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> ...



So what, Captain Irrelevant?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> I don't do links so I haven't read the article.
> 
> I am curios, however, as to how the owners of the bakery knew that the couple was gay?
> 
> ...



Perhaps you should read the story before commenting on it.  One of the women and her mother came in to talk about a cake and told the owner, Mr. Klein, that it was for a lesbian wedding.  At that point, he declined to participate in the event, quite politely.  They left, and then came back later and got all belligerent and nasty.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You know what else is immoral?  Trying to dictate to other people what their morals should be.

Newsflash.  No one on this planet is obligated to conform their moral standards either to what YOU think is moral, or to what you project their morals to be.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Simple question.
> 
> What if this was a homosexual bakery refusing service to Christians? Would any of you pro equality liberals be squealing your heads off right now? I highly think not. Think about it. And then think about how hypocritical you are.
> 
> Good night.



Or try it this way.  What if the bakery was owned by a black couple, and a pair of white supremacists wanted them to provide a cake for THEIR wedding?  Would anyone here deny that black couples' right to refuse to be part of such a thing?

And before you question it, yes, it IS a valid scenario that would happen.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question.
> ...



Oh, yes, we can SEE how tolerant gays and their partisans are.  "Burn in hell, pigs"; "Fall off a cliff"; etc.  Gays and other leftists are SO morally superior to regular human beings.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Yeah, saying, "I support the people putting these bakers out of business" is a much faster way of making that announcement.  Certainly worked for YOU.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > No Christian should judge homosexuals as sinners.  It is really none of their business.
> ...



You know what I ask myself?  What the hell any of this has to do with the question at hand of whether or not this is a country of religious freedom, or a country of freedom to believe only what the politically correct tyrants allow you to believe.

It's irrelevant whether or not you think their religious beliefs, or their exercise thereof, is Biblically correct or not.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > so-called "Christians" who persecute Gays but leave alone drunks, thieves, liars, cheats, are not real Christians.
> ...



Like I told BDBoop, if you are judging the entire religion based on the actions of those whose actions don't represent Christianity, you are foolish and making a grave error. And speaking of hypocrisy, you gay folks seem to think people are stereotyping you, well just what exactly do you think you're doing to Christians?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> ​



Okay, here's an idea.  Why don't you let Jesus instruct His followers, and butt out, particularly since this thread proves how utterly immoral and hypocritical YOU are?

You're defending "Burn in hell, pigs" messages being sent to people.  THAT is your morality and tolerance.  I wouldn't let you instruct me on how to get to the nearest supermarket, let alone on how to be a Christian.

Did _I _stutter, BIGOT?


----------



## Luissa (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...



Do you say the same thing to right wingers who assume gay men are pedophiles?


----------



## Luissa (Sep 7, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Hoffstra said:
> ...



How about when people stereotype black people? 

I see you screaming hypocrisy all the time, but I never see you calling out people who are on the other side.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> ...



Where'd you get the wacky notion that capitalism requires your business to "open to everyone"?  Try even getting an appointment with a Wall Street stockbroker if your personal net worth is below $10 mill.  I dare you.

Businesses are open to their target client base.  Who that is is defined by the business owners, based on their own personal criteria . . . or it used to be before liberals decided they were entitled to mandate "tolerance" toward themselves that they would never DREAM of extending to anyone else.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Luissa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Do you see me associating with such people? What part of "I'm a Libertarian" do you not get?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Luissa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I let other peoples ignorance speak for itself. And um, try not to move the goalposts. That was very obvious. 

Did you even come prepared with an argument?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people.  I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc.  But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.
> ...



Who ever said they WEREN'T?  However, there's a big difference between 17% of the population and 3% of the population in terms of "abnormal".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Euroconservativ said:
> 
> 
> > Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.
> ...



FYI, "legit reason" is NOT defined as "reason that Noomi, who is totally irrelevant to American issues anyway, approves of".

But you gotta give those Oregon homosexuals credit:  they've definitely created a legitimate reason for people to fear gays if they didn't before.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong here, but which of those states legalized the recognition of same sex "marriage" by vote among the general population, as opposed to some judge or other official simply declaring it legal whether the people liked it or not?

So basically, you just proved his point right:  The only way intolerant, bigoted tyrants like you can get your way is by forcing redefinitions on people.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 7, 2013)

Oh man, this thread is going to be an absolute firestorm in the morning.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Why do I see a whole new type of civil rights lawyers cropping up to advise business owners on how to circumvent these Unconstitutional forced association laws masquerading as "anti-discrimination"?


----------



## Noomi (Sep 8, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Having children out of wedlock is a sin, and human cloning is immoral. Tattoos are clearly forbidden. Yet they are happy to support all of those things, just not the gays.
> ...



Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

Plus he has tattoos, which are clearly condemned in the Bible.



Kondor3 said:


> And even if they did...
> 
> So, they cherry-picked the Bible for the parts that THEY want to believe-in or to consider operative as God's Law or Moral Law...
> 
> Big deal...



In other words, its okay to twist the word of God to suit your own bigoted beliefs?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.
> ...



You were doing SOOOO well, and then you had to start lying to make it okay.

The couple was, and IS, under investigation by the state of Oregon for violation of their "anti-discrimination" law.  Furthermore, only in leftist "Die if you disagree with me" land are threats and intimidation considered "the free market" or a "community boycott".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Really?  When did homosexuality become a race, ethnicity, or religion, and why wasn't I informed?

For the record, though, I don't think the government has any business mandating forced association for private businesses in THOSE cases, either.  I think communities and private individuals have always done a better job of regulating moral behavior than the government, which pretty uniformly has a history of royally fucking it up.  See:  Jim Crow laws and modern-day "desegregation".  Whichever side of the argument the government comes down on, they make an utter dog's dinner out of it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Huffington Post huh? Why aren't any other major news outlets reporting this? Ah yes, it must not be credible enough even for them, Noomi. Who says we're twisting the word of God when we stand up for our faith? But then again, people who know nothing of Christianity seem to suddenly know so much about our God and the Bible.. enough to start launching self righteous and judgmental epithets at us. Wait, how does that work again? Normally, for people who know so much, I'd expect them to be sitting next to me on the pew for a church service!

Before you call me or anyone else a bigot, evaluate the behavior of a liberal and then get back to me.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 8, 2013)

How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.
> 
> Why _shouldn't_ there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically.  If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.





WorldWatcher said:


> To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:
> 
> 1.  Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?
> 
> ...





TemplarKormac said:


> Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.
> 
> That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.



No the analogy is not flawed it is based on what you said: "Why _shouldn't_ there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche."

In each case above it was the individual God (or Gods) that they believed told them, based on a direct communication from God (or their Gods) and their interpretation of their faith (or other convictions) that they were not to do the things asked.

Who are you to decide for them what the teachings of their faith are?  Are you assuming that each of them is a Christian?  Are you then saying the government should tell them what their individual and personal faith and convictions are?

"A persons religious (or otherwise) convictions" are their personal beliefs.



TemplarKormac said:


> As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.



So who gets to define whether their beliefs are "a religious objection based on reality"?

What you are saying very clearly, and I'm not trying to twist things, is that "my views" needs special exceptions to the law because my views are based on reality.  However I support others persons views not having the same validity as my views and therefore it's OK to usurp their beliefs (or other convictions) and allow the government to then exercise control over whether that private business should be allowed to discriminate.

So if we have these Public Accommodation laws and they apply equally to all business except now there are "special privileges" to exempt religious views.  But wait, it's only certain religius views (ones you agree with) that qualify for an exemption.  If the owner of an Auto Repair shop says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough.  A plumber says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough.  A Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough.  A hotel owner says his faith says that God (or Gods) don't allow him to rent to people from Ireland - that's not good enough.  But if a Christian Bakery says that they won't sell a wedding cake to two people of the same gender - OH, that's OK - I agree with that one.

See that's the problem.  By calling for a religious exemption you actually have two problems:

#1 - Anyone can say any act of discrimination is based on their ""religious (or otherwise) convictions" and be exempt from the law.  Otherwise you have the government deciding what is and is not a valid religious exemption and according to the Constitution the government is not to "respect" one religion over another.

#2 - Secondly is cedes to the government that it is proper for them to set the conditions under which a private business owner can or cannot refuse service based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, marital statue, veterans status, parental status, etc.  The fundamental issue is the usurping of property rights and if those are respected then religion isn't a factor under any conditions and no "special privileges" for faith (or other convictions) are needed.​

As I said previously, what I'm seeing from some is that Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing.  It's time to start repealing Public Accommodation laws and let the property rights of the private business have sway - if that happens the whole issue goes away.  Ya, there may be an oddball case of discrimination that the government then doesn't poke it's nose into.  So what, with liberty there is some pain.  Let the consumer then be able to chose whether to support a discriminatory business or not.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.
> ...



Theologians for centuries have all agreed that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality, but YOU, in your infinite wisdom, are now going to declare that they're all incorrect, and God's actually okay with it?

Even if it WAS "just one mention", the Bible actually only NEEDS to mention something once for it to be . . . y'know, Biblical.  Duh.

Here's a thought, putz.  Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't, instead of trying to tell them that it's okay to invalidate their Constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs because they're "wrong" about what they are?  Sheesh.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?



What does cloning have to do with this discussion Noomi? And how do you know if they support cloning or not? Can you read minds in Oregon sitting there across the Pacific Ocean in Australia? I have no opinion on cloning, if your really must know. By adhering to the principles set up in the Bible, they are upholding their faith. If you want to know what those are, I suggest you read the Bible. If you don't want to, I suggest you refrain from commenting on people or religions you don't know the first thing about, it makes you look foolish. If you are unwilling to educate yourself about my faith at least, how can you question what we can and cannot stand up for and against?

(Apologies for the forcefulness of this post, Noomi, but if someone gets offended by honesty, well then I guess they don't value honesty too much...)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear FF: It just means you need a big enough PR budget to "turn the other cheek"
> like ChickFilA did. And call people nationwide to support their business in the face of opposition. They even served free food to people protesting in the heat. Answered by "speaking the truth with love" and won more support than anything said in anger.
> 
> 
> ...



Aahh, another piss-ignorant quadrant heard from.  I swear, I can almost FEEL my IQ drop a couple of points every time this font of duuuhhh talks.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.
> ...



I'm sorry, but God stopped giving direct divinations and signs in the days of the Old Testament. So to say God directly impels me or anyone else to do anything is wrong. I will maintain that as the crux of my argument, because I am actually a Christian, I would assume I'm not talking out of my rear end here. Talk about law all you wish, but I don't think God would ask me to discriminate against someone out of hatred, but for a legitimate reason.

11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, &#8220;Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.&#8221; 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

Mark 8:11-13

When it is evening, you say, &#8216;It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.&#8217; 3 And in the morning, &#8216;It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.&#8217; You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret lthe signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.&#8221; So he left them and departed. 

Matthew 16:1-4


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Actually, the problem was that the wedding itself was an event in which the bakers did not wish to participate in any way, shape, or form, whereas they have no religious objections to homosexuals having birthdays.

So baking the tiers and having someone else assemble them would STILL have been participation, which is what they didn't want to do.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> You were doing SOOOO well, and then you had to start lying to make it okay.
> 
> The couple was, and IS, under investigation by the state of Oregon for violation of their "anti-discrimination" law.  Furthermore, only in leftist "Die if you disagree with me" land are threats and intimidation considered "the free market" or a "community boycott".



As you said, they are under investigation, there has been no action by the government at this point - the business closed it's retail outlet because of lost revenue because their customers went away.

By it's very nature a boycott is "intimidation" and that is the market at work.  What do you think a boycott is besides an attempt at economic intimidation.  Or put another way, the ability of the consumer to choose at which business they spend their dollars.

People have the right of free speech and can express their displeasure with the bakery for their conduct.  However I don't support threats of violence and such threats are a criminal offense.  The bakery owners should have turned that information over to the police and the perpetrators charged under the law.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A business is judged on the quality of their product and how they treat their customers
> ...



I think they should have just told the bitches that they didn't want to bake the cake because they were unpleasant excuses for human beings with whom the bakers didn't want to associate.

I'll bet that's the truth NOW, even if it wasn't then.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Dear FF: It just means you need a big enough PR budget to "turn the other cheek"
> ...



Good thing I'm here as the lightning rod.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Talk to us about a lacking sense of humor when WE start running to the government to beat down anyone who dares to disagree with us.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 8, 2013)

The Freak Show is still goin' full-tilt, I see...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Respectfully of your beliefs, that would be irrelevant.  Any claim by an individual of their "person's religious (or otherwise) conviction" was the standard.

Just because your belief is that God (or Gods) wouldn't speak to them or influence their perspective or interpretation doesn't matter.  Based on the standard of "A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction" necessitating an "special privilege" under the law would have to apply (if special exemptions are written into the law) unless the government then starts getting to decide what is a valid "religious (or otherwise) conviction that qualifies.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:
> ...



Actually, we think LESS than 2% of the population drove this baker out of business, since I expect more than 98% of the population JUST IN HIS TOWN knew nothing about what was going on, and wouldn't have given a damn if they had.

It doesn't really take very many vitriolic, hate-filled, hypocritical bigots to write threatening letters and making intimidating phone calls, after all.

The business was closed because you and your ilk quite clearly showed us EXACTLY what sort of "tolerance" you deserve from now on.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Really?  I admit to being a bigot against bigots and hypocrites of all persuasions.  Probably why YOU make me want to vomit.

Was this supposed to be clever?  "I'm a bigot, but only against bigots.  Of course, I define that as anyone to disagrees with me, so that means I only have to tolerate people who agree with me!"  Yeah, and the Pope "tolerates" Catholics.

Like virtually everything you say, this doesn't pass the laugh test for anyone intelligent . . . which is probably why you thought it was brilliant.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Wait a minute, you value the law so much, why do you ignore what the Constitution says about freedom of religion, association, and expression? And yes, the Constitution still matters.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> The Freak Show is still goin' full-tilt, I see...



Hypocrisy never sleeps my friend.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I am not basing my argument on anybody's faith, Christian or otherwise.

Nobody should be forced to serve anybody in this country.  We fought a long and bloody war to free people from slavery, and the law should never be able to put one person under bondage to another.

As a matter of ethics, morality, and common sense, I will serve anybody who comes to my place of business and I don't care who or what brand they are..  But I should not be required by  law or any other edict to go someplace else that I do not want to go or be someplace that I do not choose to be whether that be because I am Christian, Jew, Druid, anti-accordian players, or just don't happen to feel like it today.

And I still say those who would destroy a person's business and livelihood or threaten their person, their family, their friends, associates, customers, etc. purely because they disagree with an opinion or conviction the person holds - 

such people are bigoted far more than this Christian baker could ever be and such people are doing evil that no freedom loving American should ever condone.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Amen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Lots of people who are Christian have tattoos. Believe it or not, tattoos do not magically disappear when you change your mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?



Quick question, even if they believe that, why does it prove they are not sincere? Who appointed you judge of what is, and is not, permissible for Christians? Aren't your words simply bigotry and hate speech aimed at people who have a different world view than you do? Doesn't that make you worse than the people who do not believe that it is wrong to discriminate based on personal beliefs?


----------



## Noomi (Sep 8, 2013)

I would have thought that most Christians would be opposed to human cloning considering that it destroys a human embryo.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



While I agree with the premise that any business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, currently we do not live under such a law and all businesses open to the public are bound by anti-discrimination laws.

Quite frankly I see no reason to discriminate against anyone at face value.  I have told customers to take their business elsewhere for various reasons with no blow back but I had reasons other than I was intolerant of a person's personal choices.




> And I still say those who would destroy a person's business and livelihood or threaten their person, their family, their friends, associates, customers, etc. purely because they disagree with an opinion or conviction the person holds -



And again criticism from the market and the community you serve is part of doing business.  I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.  It's always been that way and will always be that way.  Any business owner with any common sense knows this.

And I do not think it's bigoted to want a person to treat everyone equally.

Those who do not treat everyone equally are bigots.  And society today has little tolerance for that.

It's not good or bad it's just the way it is and as a business owner you have to adapt to that.  If you don't we know what happens.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 8, 2013)

Maybe so called christian business should post the list of sins that disqualify people from entering their establishments.

That way all sinners are treated equally and the business owners immortal soul will be protected.

For example.

We are a Christian business therefore if you have every committed any of the following sins we are unable to serve you:

Adultery
Theft
Murder
Being gay
Divorce
 etc
etc etc


I wonder how many customers they'd have.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You are both liars. Read your posts.  I frigging quoted you two.  Both of you defended the right of this baker to refuse to serve gays in public.  Both of you are for repealing the civil rights laws that force christians to serve gays against their religion.  Both of you are repeatedly accusing the community at large of committing "evil" sins by forcing this baker out of business.  Your accusations have repeatedly stated that they destroyed this baker.  Repeatedly.  Then when I called you are your CITED statements, you feign disbelief and call me a liar for CITING YOU. What a load of crap.  Admit it you two are christian bigots against gays.  You don't even support gays as being worthy of practicing the time honored tradition of picketing in this country let alone worth of being defended by our civil rights laws.  Homophobe bigotry.  You should both be ashamed of what you have said.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


"Pounded into the ground for it." 
You are a proud fool who thinks way to much of himself.  The only thing you "pounded" was your fist on you bible.  Slavery existed in the time of the bible, and it was not all "charity" being handed out by good Christians as you prefer to believe. 

The discussion from you was to the history of slavery in the bible as being different than the abominations Christians did against blacks in America, and defended in the exact same way you are defending your homophobia against gays as evidence that gays should not be provided civil rights per the law.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Hmm, I'm not sure if you interpret me correctly or not here, because I am having a hard time applying your words to what I had said, so at this point I may have a hard time answering your assessment of my words spoken to your interpretation of, because I am not sure if you interpreted my words correctly. Will get back to you once I make sense of what we have done here, because at this point I am now confused as to where we are at in this ...   :/


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Thanks for being honest.  That's much better than pretending I'm a liar by stating the clear meaning of their views that christian bigotry against gays should be protected.

I would defend civil rights laws, based on the fact that without them great harm is done by the majority on minority groups.  Everyone has the basic right to life and liberty.  Shopping in the public marketplace is a necessity for all of us. The ability of the majority to literally and figuratively starve out a minority group must be restrained.  If not where does the line move? Do christians then move into gay hovels like israeli settlers and thus then move gays out of counties and states?  Where does that end? With gays being pushed out of the states?  That may be preferable to you.  But I warn you, some day some majority group may target you and your family as not being of the right race, creed, religion, or "sexual orientation."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.
> 
> That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.






TemplarKormac said:


> As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.





TemplarKormac said:


> I'm sorry, but God stopped giving direct divinations and signs in the days of the Old Testament. So to say God directly impels me or anyone else to do anything is wrong. I will maintain that as the crux of my argument, because I am actually a Christian, I would assume I'm not talking out of my rear end here. Talk about law all you wish, but I don't think God would ask me to discriminate against someone out of hatred, but for a legitimate reason.
> 
> 11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, &#8220;Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.&#8221; 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.
> 
> ...





TemplarKormac said:


> Wait a minute, you value the law so much, why do you ignore what the Constitution says about freedom of religion, association, and expression? And yes, the Constitution still matters.




By repealing Publiic Accommodation laws in general then ALL people can have their religious beliefs and convictionis protected.  They will be able to act as they see fit in the conduct of private business.

However from the series of posts above, you have demonstrated that your position appears to be that only certain religious beliefs (or convictions) should be respected.  That there is to be some kind of test and judgement on which claims of religiouos beliefs (or convictions) are valid.

If it's Christians discriminating against gays - well that OK because I agree with it.

If the owner of an Auto Repair shop claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough. 

If the owner of an plumber claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough. 

If a Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough.

If a hotel owner claims religious beliefs (or convictions) in not renting to a room to someone from Ireland - that's not good enough.​

****************************************************

What you've asked for is a "special privilege" for faith based discrimination against homosexuals while not arguing that a person should also be able to claim a faith based argument for any other type of discrimination the person attempts to justify based on a personal religious belief (or conviction).  Your justification appears to be, we'll the others are invalid because the Bible says this or that.  However if the law were to allow special privileges for discrimination against gays, then those same exemptions would have to be available to anyone claiming a religious belief (or conviction) to discriminate against anyone.  And no the exemption would not need to be just on "Christian" beliefs, Christians are free to have personal religious beliefs (or convictions) about their own interpretation of the Bible and in fact there are other religious belifs (or convictions) not based on our Bible.

One of the arguments proposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving case to justify upholding interracial Marriage bans was "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."  That was a religious belief held by many people in the early part of the 20th century.

In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith the SCOTUS squarely addressed the idea with the following: 

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​
The Public Accommodation law which is the subject of this tread is an Oregon based law.  The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate Interstate Commerce and the 10th Amendment reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the Federal government.  Therefore States have the inherent power to regulate instra-state commerce.  Public Accommodation laws are laws written which are general in nature and which can be argued are valid for the state to regulate and such laws have been consistently upheld in the past going back to Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States.

If we want these laws changed, it is very unlikely to happen in the courts because (a) they are not targeted against religous persons, (b) they have general applicability and are otherwise valid, and (c) they fall within the purview of the State under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce within their State.  If we want these laws changed we need to get the legislature to repeal them because (while they may be seen as needful in the past), there is no longer the need for big government interference and and that the property rights of the private individual should be restored.



Loving v. Virginia
Employment Division v. Smith
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Here's a thought, putz.  Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you?   These gays were regulars at that bakery.   No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels.  They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.

The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding.   That's where they drew the line.  It was a reasonable line.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Why don't you?    If someone decides for themselves whether or not THEY are committing a sin, isn't that really their right?  If a Jehovah's Witness says it's a sin to give a gift at Christmas should they be forced into the company's Secret Santa policy?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> I would have thought that most Christians would be opposed to human cloning considering that it destroys a human embryo.



That is an overtly asinine thing to say. Not only does this have nothing to do with the discussion, you are simply trying avert people's eyes from the true issue. Human cloning has nothing to do with our rejection of homosexuality. Nothing. I implore you to speak to that issue rather than bashing us about human cloning. Also your science is off about cloning, you can take stem cells from any one ANY one and clone them.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


Are you really this retarded?  Or are you just kidding?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Get back satan.  You don't scare me one bit.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You are displaying an ignorance of the law.  The law does not force you to sell to the public marketplace, but it does place rules on those who do.  You don't like the civil rights laws on the public marketplace?  Fine create a private marketplace. Is perfectly legal within the law to be a homophobic christian bigot who refuses to serve gays in a private marketplace.  

What you are asking for, clearly, is an ability to change the public marketplace laws by allowing certain groups to be restricted from buying in the public marketplace based on the religious views of the "public" at large.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Where did I state anything different?


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The problem is always this defining groups as being a blanketed "minority", and not defining them by their anti-American cultures if so be the case, or their anti-American belief systems, their radicalism, their wanting to dominate another, their wanting to convert another, their wanting to corrupt another, just as it should be being defined by their actions and words spoken, therefore giving them a much broader label than just being a blanket "minority" in which sadly includes the bad in with the good under this blanket label, and this is a major problem in America now. Our understandings of these groups who are in and amongst the societies who are at large now, shows us that there in lies groups within groups whom stage their attacks from within these groups upon their enemies who are Americans, and this has been a huge problem these days for Americans who believe in America as they had understood America to be for them, and not for those who are anti-American that see America as something they need to change big time as according to them. 

There are many groups out there whom don't believe in Americanism as it had been defined over the years, and are now attacking the American united groups, by using the defining of their group as found under one label "minority" instead of what should be a boarder multi label in which would better define the groups and their intended goals that which needs to be understood by all under such a blanket label. The government has not represented us properly in all of this, and it has created vast weaknesses within all of their lazy blanketing terms, thus defining the country and it's occupants as being somehow the same, and with the same intentions under such labeling, therefore setting the nation up for losers and winners be it one way or the other, yet all depending on which way the government decides to enforce it's will upon the nation, ether by using the labeling or terms in which it uses to describe whole groups of people under one label, instead of looking into these groups properly as it always should be doing instead. 

By this vague defining under the word "minority", we who have a certain way of belief systems for raising a family, believing in God and the American way, are then placed in a dangerous situation where we are to open our arms to groups who may want to destroy our way of life, just because they fall into a vague category in which the feds decided that they need to be allowed into any area they want to venture into, and this regardless of their anti-stance against the area in which they have been allowed into by government order against the area in which they choose to destroy instead of assimilate when they decide to venture in. It has become a major problem in a backlash situation that has developed over time, because the feds have been to lazy to do the right thing in all of this, and they have allowed a vague defining of what a groups intentions are when forcing others to accept them, and this has become a huge problem for Americans now.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you?   These gays were regulars at that bakery.   No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels.  They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.
> 
> The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding.   That's where they drew the line.  It was a reasonable line.


I agree with a line being drawn in this way.. Yes !


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I suspect that you are absolutely correct in that 98% of the population knew nothing about it.  If they did I think many would have recognized the bigoted and hypocritical attack for what it was and probably would have been buying extra cakes to support the bakery.  I wonder how many in the next year will find out their favorite baker was put out of business when they drive by to order a birthday cake fr their son or daughter.  There is a reason this barrage was not publicized.  It would have failed if the general public knew about it and could have countered it.

Immie


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Huh... 

You are talking about philosophy and moral degradation of our culture through mixing with those who are traditionally seen as vile within the culture. 

Ok.  Interesting discussion. But what does that have to do with the right of those who are not within the mainstream culture to refuse the ostracized service?    You don't have to approve of a culture to sell goods to a person who does.   Public accommodation laws, within the civil rights act, were to separate private culture (bigotry etc.) from the public marketplace. Do we ban Islamic from football stadiums because we fear an Islamic terrorist may strap a bomb on his chest?  Do we ban Hispanic immigration because we fear Hispanics may bring the South American drug trade to our shores?  

Where does your fear of other cultures end and the recognition that fear is the mind killer begin?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you?   These gays were regulars at that bakery.   No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels.  They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.
> ...



If they draw the line at servicing public weddings at all then I agree.  However, what they did was draw the line at servicing only public weddings that were not gay weddings, which is discriminatory against gays on face and thus against the public accommodation laws.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you?   These gays were regulars at that bakery.   No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels.  They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.
> ...



The court in New Mexico drew a new line.  It too is a reasonable line.  That's the one that should be followed.  It came out of the court, it satisfies both sides.  Let that one stand.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Immie, since February, this bakery has received widespread local coverage, with the bakers discussing it on screen to local TV news stations, and in other forms of media. The bakers called up  conservative radio talk shows since March (Lars Larson is one, have to dig up the otehr) and they used the oportunity to cry victim nationally there -- they received an temporary upsurge in business because it was reported widely there and in segments of con-media.

Then business dropped off. The local Portland Food critic had a story that reviews were not very good for the bakery and their cupcakes were dry.   They were having troubles before that. They have FIVE kids, and quite frankly, I think they just did a sucky job of running a business.  which leads me to wonder, who was taking care of the kids while they were running the business?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?
> ...



That brings us to the very principle this thread should be about.  Why is it less immoral to believe that Christians are delusional and should be required to keep their religion out of sight and to themselves than it is to believe that gays should be required to keep their marriages out of sight and to themselves?   I'm going to guess that more gay people think Christians are an abomination than Christians think gays are an abomination.

I would lay odds that a very large percentage of Christian bakers would have delivered and set up that cake at a gay wedding.  I would have.  Everybody I know would have.  But that isn't the point.

I do not want my government having the power to order me to go anywhere or do anything in the service of others that I do not choose to do.  No matter who the others are.  The Founders intended that we all have an unalienable right to our thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and convictions with impunity.

It costs the bakers nothing to sell cakes and cookies over the counter to anybody at the store.  How would the baker even KNOW who the people are unless the people tell them?   But it is quite something else again to require the baker to participate in something which he or she does not wish to participate.

To intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody purely because you don't agree with their belief or conviction is unAmerican.  And it is evil.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Okay, then maybe I am mistaken.  Maybe the threats of violence against anyone who would dare to oppose the homosexual agenda have had its intended effect.  That just goes to show that it is even more sinister and outrageous.  

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


The only one who has made claim of threats of violence, and I denounce them strongly if true, is the baker.  So far, AFAIK, the baker has not reported these threats to the officials.

Why?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



>>> To intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody purely because you don't agree with their belief or conviction is unAmerican.  And it is evil.

How many hundreds of times are you going to make this completely baseless accusation.  No one was destroyed.  NO ONE!  A bad baker lost their business because their customers did not want to buy their CRAPPY product.  You are delusional. 

>>> But it is quite something else again to require the baker to participate in something which he or she does not wish to participate.

NO ONE FORCED THE BAKER OR REQUIRED THE BAKER TO PARTICIPATE IN ANYTHING. The baker's customer came in asking for a public accommodation that the baker provided to his customers.  The baker refused based on sexual orientation.  The customer filed a complaint that he baker refused public accommodation based on sexual orientation, which is against the law. 

You are being irrational and delusional.   If you don't want to sell products to the public, don't sell products to the public, it's not that hard to understand.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you?   These gays were regulars at that bakery.   No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels.  They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.
> 
> The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding.   That's where they drew the line.  It was a reasonable line.



What participation was that?  Driving the cake to the reception hall?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I would have baked the cake, decorated the cake, delivered the cake and told the couple that obtaining a topper and set up was their responsibility.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you?   These gays were regulars at that bakery.   No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels.  They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.
> ...



Unless this was a sheet cake, it was a tiered wedding cake that required construction of the tiers at the venue.   This same couple had ordered birthday cakes, that required no participation, several times before without incident.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Maybe you didn't read the article from the OP?

I saw several threats against the bakers and their children.  Tell me you do not condone those.

Here is the quote from the OP:



> Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couple&#8217;s children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.
> And yet another wrote: &#8220;Here&#8217;s hoping you go out of business, you bigot.&#8221;
> The couple said on top of that, their vendors were &#8220;badgered and harassed&#8221; into stopping all associations with the bakery.
> The Kleins say they&#8217;re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash.



It mentions threats against the couple's children and others.  It was the Blaze article, which I do not care to hunt down on my iPad that listed the threats more succinctly.

Sorry, I initially misread what you posted.

Why not report them?  First we do not know they have not.  Secondly, what good would it do?  Those threats were made anonymously, even if you could find the computer from which they came, proving who sent them would be impossible, not to mention a waste of time because unless, these bakers were public officials no crime worth pursuing was broken.

Immie


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I said it before but it got ignored.

There is no gay marriage in Oregon.  So what deeply help christian beliefs of the bakers were being violated?  It appears this may have been a celebration of a civil union...which is not a marriage, it's a contract!

Where in the bible does it say no contracts between homos?


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Geezez Immie...can't you READ?  Don't make me whip your little hiney! ;p

See the red in bold there?

NOW:  Please answer the question:  WHY?  Do you think if there were actual threats on their life as they have said, there would be reports to the police?

I have read reports that police have not been contacted regarding threats on their lives.  If you have something that says they reported it, then I'm happy to see it.  That's what most people do when they receive threats.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > It's their own fault. People have the right to refuse to buy from them, which they did, and they are complaining about it?
> ...



 [MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION]

Someone who gets the Golden Rule.  How refreshing!


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



See my edited reply.  I stopped reading when it appeared you claimed the baker was the only one that made threats.  Then after making my post, I went back and read the rest of you post. 

When I skimmed your post, this was what I first caught...



> The only one who has made threats of violence, *and I denounce them strongly if true*, is the baker



I couldn't believe you said that... And then I went back and read what you had said.

My apologies edit damn iPad changing my words!  Note the difference between what you actually said and what I thought you were saying.

Immie


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > sure and why don't we go back to refusing black people a ride on the front of the bus while we are at it.
> ...



 [MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION]

Look up how Noomi boob's government treats its indigenous people, the aborigines.  She has no room to lecture anyone.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Because you have to actually attend the wedding venue.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue.  It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.

Next, the cake is delivered and set up long before any guests arrive, then the baker leaves.  They don't go to any wedding/civil union ceremonies nor stay for the reception.

So now you're saying the objection the xtian bakers had was being forced to visit the reception hall to deliver the cake.  Does that mean they can never visit that hall again in their life?  Is it filled with gay cooties now?


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


You know what's strange about all this?  NO ONE knows how big this civil ceremony was going to be, whether it was even *at* a reception hall (I have attended a number of post-ceremony evens at people's houses, even one in a local park)   or ANY other details about this event.  NONE.

It could have been a small ceremony with a gathering after, where they had no tiers, a moderate sized cake, planned pick-up...any number of variables 
*NO
ONE 
KNOWS*

All we know is, they went in to discuss a cake for the ceremony, and it never went past "it's for two women" -- (not exact phrase, they said the names of the brides) -- 

That.was.it.

So all this cracky crap about halls, tiers, attending, bla bla bla is just speculation about a  dork head who got his figgety ass all tailed up when heard it was a same-sex wedding.

Then proceeded to tell them they were "abominations."

All these other speculations are ridiculous.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



No.  It means that these Christians will not commit a personal sin by attending a same sex commitment ceremony.   There might be and probably are hundreds if not thousands of Christians who do not see their own personal sin in making a wedding cake for a same sex couple.   These do.  They should not be compelled by law or someone else's desire to carry that sin in their hearts.  They are being spiritually raped.  They are forced into committing an act that they find personally reprehensible.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

It might not be understandable to someone without a moral code or moral compass.   Only someone with principles can understand the refusal to participate in same sex ceremonies.  It doesn't really matter what those principles are, being forced to violate them is the same no matter what it is.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Then why the wedding cake? Surely you aren't this malinformed?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It might not be understandable to someone without a moral code or moral compass.   Only someone with principles can understand the refusal to participate in same sex ceremonies.  It doesn't really matter what those principles are, being forced to violate them is the same no matter what it is.



And that again is the absolute point.  It does not MATTER if the bakers are bigoted.  It does not matter that to most of the free world they are in the wrong.  It does not matter that their point of view makes no sense whatsoever to anybody else.   They are nevertheless entitled to their beliefs and convictions.

And again, even if their reason was that they just didn't feel like doing a wedding cake on any given day, we must not condone their destruction purely because we do not agree with their views on something.  And we must not condone our government forcing us to serve others against our beliefs, our convictions, our will or in any other circumstance.

If folks can't get that through their heads, then unalienable rights no longer are recognized in this country and no longer protected.  And we are no longer free.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?




You didn't think that one through, did you?


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?



Jews do not close their stores any day of the week in the US.  That scenario wouldn't happen.  Jews even sell Christmas merchandise including decorations.  Jews like money.  How did you miss that part?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Jews don't even drive their cars on the Sabbath.  If they have stores open, it's because they have non Jews working there.

There is no prohibition against Christmas decorations.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?



Good point but not exactly the same thing as the Orthodox Jewish bakery wouldn't do weddings for ANYBODY, including other Jews, on the Sabbath.  But the Jewish baker should not be forced to deliver to or set up at a neo-Nazi or skinhead or KKK convention or a harmonica festival on any other day if he did not choose to do that.

Nor should a gay baker, or anybody else, be forced to deliver to or set up at the Westboro Baptist Church or any other organization that actively denigrates or campaigns/demonstrates against gays and/or other groups. 

It is not a matter of condoning bigotry.  It is a matter of unalienable rights to openly profess what we believe and hold sacred.  Nobody should be forced to hire a bigot, promote a bigot, or set up a wedding cake for a bigot.   But the bigot has the unalienable right to his/her beliefs and convictions as does anybody else.

And to destroy somebody because (the rhetorical) YOU decided the person is a bigot or because he/she holds beliefs or convictions you don't share is wrong.  It is indefensible.  It is evil.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



You are right.   The position of the gay mafia is wrong, indefensible and evil.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

The gay mafia at work.

Gay Activists Used 'Mafia Tactics' to Shut Down Bakery, Says Christian Couple

They've been militant. The best way I can describe it is they've used mafia tactics against the business. Basically, if you do business with Sweet Cakes, we will shut you down," he said

The couple claim that even after the protests and mafia tactics finally forced them to shut down their store on Saturday, they were still facing aggressive attacks as they packed up their belongings to move on Sunday.

Someone broke into their bakery truck and ransacked it on Sunday evening. The incident was confirmed by the Clackamas County Sheriff's office according to KATU, but no one has been arrested.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?



He could have delivered the cake Friday.

That was too easy.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



These cakes are buttercream and would not survive an overnighter.


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Jews don't even drive their cars on the Sabbath.  If they have stores open, it's because they have non Jews working there.
> 
> There is no prohibition against Christmas decorations.



I grew up in a small town.  I have bought things from the business owners THEMSELVES on Saturday.   You are full of shit.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




Agreed.  It appears most if not all of the anti-gay-cake argument is that the xtians were offended at having to go to the venue of either the ceremony or reception.  Not only is there no evidence that was the concern of the bakers we don't even know if there WAS a venue.

And you're right.  As soon as the xtians found out it was for a homosexual event/ceremony they said "nyet!".  All this imbroglio over their objection to going to the venue was just made up by the anti's.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So a venue that serves food and caters weddings, and various other parties where food and drink are served doesn't have a fridge?

Again too easy.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Jews don't even drive their cars on the Sabbath.  If they have stores open, it's because they have non Jews working there.
> ...



That settles it!  Your small town is representative of all Jews everywhere!   How could I have been so blind as to not realize that your Jews are the same as all Jews.

There are plenty of bakeries owned by Christians that would have been happy to make this wedding cake too.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



Orthodox and other fundamentalist Jewish sects obey the Sabbath laws.  But just as there are Christians representing the most rigidly conservative fundamentalists to the most open minded, liberal, anything goes groups, there are all manner of Jewish sects ranging from deeply legalistic kosher religious to not religious at all.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Did you stop to wonder what a fridge would look like to hold a constructed tiered wedding cake?   Would YOU want to transport a constructed, tiered cake from table to fridge and back or were you just unaware that once together they cannot be moved.   Again, too easy.  These cakes are not welded together, they are balanced.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


And mafia!  And Jews now. 

These guys are entertaining, I'll give them that.


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



You made a blanket statement that Jews don't work on Saturday.  I gave you examples of some who do work on Saturday.  You were wrong.  Deal with it, dumbass.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

The religious rights and beliefs of this Christian couple were violated.  There is no way around it.   The gay mafia won.  

But not entirely.   Christians were left a way out through the precedent set in New Mexico.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


First, your ridiculous Jewish baker thing was astoundingly stoopid.

If a Jewish baker didn't bake cakes for delivery on Saturday, they'd be saying no to ALL weddings on Saturday.  Not just _the gheys_.  Duh.

Second, please give us some insight as to where you learned the details of the cake that was to be made. How big it was, how many it was to serve.

 No one - NO ONE knows. Except the couple themselves, and I'm certain you have not talked to them.  .

You're making up shit, and there's  a word for that you know.

And as I recall, it's a sin in your religion.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



It does not MATTER what their reason was.  If the KKK convention wanted to hire me to do anything, and if I found out what it was, I would also say NYET.   I would provide a sevice for a gay wedding.

Again this bakery had provided products to this same gay couple for some time.  They had no problem with gay people or serving gay people.  Their objection was participating in any way in an event that  they could not in good conscience condone.

We don't have to like the bakers' attitude about that.  We might even choose to withhold our business because of that attitude and that is our right to do.

But to attack the bakers, threaten them, their family, their customers, their suppliers--to actively seek to destroy this business because the owners hold a conviction or belief?   That is wrong.  That is a violation of civil and unalienable rights.   That is unAmerican.  That is evil.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The gay mafia at work.
> 
> Gay Activists Used 'Mafia Tactics' to Shut Down Bakery, Says Christian Couple
> 
> ...



""I didn't want to be a part of her marriage which I think is wrong," Aaron Klein told KATU."

What marriage?  Gay marriage is not recognized in Oregon.

Again, what deeply held religious belief was being violated?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




Every restaurant or banquet hall I have ever been in had a walk-in fridge.

But It's not too hard to put a cake together. As long as all the supports are left in the cakes

The next day all you have to do is place the upper cakes on the support bases of the lower cake in the correct order.

If you ever played with blocks you can put a wedding cake together.

You're just looking for any excuse here aren't you?

Want to keep trying?

Most business owners solve piddly problems like these all day long.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?




Let's examine this scenrio in a logical manner:

#1 - If the Jewish bakery had a history of setting Saturday as a closed day and did not operate it's business, Public Accommodation laws do not require the shop to open to take an order.  The bakery could easily inform the couple that they are not available to contract the cake for that day.  Perfectly legal as the reason for not taking the contract as long as the same standard is applied.

#2 - If the Jewish baker though advertised it hours as being open on Saturday, then they would have an issue.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Jews don't even drive their cars on the Sabbath.  If they have stores open, it's because they have non Jews working there.
> 
> There is no prohibition against Christmas decorations.




Just wondering...

.........................Did you type that with a straight face?



>>>>


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



They're not moved constructed, each tier remains in it's own box until constructed on the table where it will be served.

For chrissakes, the arguments get more hysterical by the minute.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The religious rights and beliefs of this Christian couple were violated.  There is no way around it.   The gay mafia won.
> 
> But not entirely.   Christians were left a way out through the precedent set in New Mexico.



And what was that?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



Actually, you're right!

Which is why the ruling in the Elane Photography case makes so much sense and allows Christians the right and ability to exercise greater freedom in choosing who they will work for.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The gay mafia at work.
> ...



If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck; it is probably a duck.  It does not matter what they call it, it is the same thing.

Immie


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...





Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So if it was a fake marriage with no legal authority the xtians would be equally correct in their bigotry?

So the biblical phrase in play here is "MArriage shall be between one man and one woman...including fake marriages"?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > It might not be understandable to someone without a moral code or moral compass.   Only someone with principles can understand the refusal to participate in same sex ceremonies.  It doesn't really matter what those principles are, being forced to violate them is the same no matter what it is.
> ...



You are not and were not ever permitted to cause harm to another human being.  The law states discriminating against another human based on race, creed, sexual orientation etc. in the public market place is a harm that is no longer tolerated in this country.  Thus, it does matter that they are bigots who committed a bigoted act against the law against this gay person.  Just because you are good with the act does not make the act a harm that is permitted.  Just because someone then subsequently caused this baker a slight by harassing them with responsive emails and picketing does not forgive your sins.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



It might.   Suppose it was a heterosexual couple and a cohabitation ceremony without marriage?  The Christians opposed living in sin.  It would end up the exact same way.

That's come up with landlords and inn keepers who refused to rent to couples just living together or running off to the Notell Motel.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


They told the reporter (from the Pulitzer prize winning newspaper) they would bake a   baby shower cake for a lady having her second baby  with her boyfriend.  

And a pagan solstice cake they would bake too.

With a pentagram design.

They's all in on that.  Cafeteria christians as well as bakers.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The religious rights and beliefs of this Christian couple were violated.  There is no way around it.   The gay mafia won.
> ...



If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery, or *if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane Photographys choice of whom to photograph or not.*

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

This is the correct ruling.   Had the baker not advertised wedding cakes, but made wedding cakes by special arrangement, not offering such service to the general public, it could legally refuse to make cakes for same sex ceremonies of any kind.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

It would not help this baker, who was not only in a poor legal position, but had to undergo persecution by the gay mafia as well.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

gay mafia.

Geezez Christ you folks are such whackadoodles.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Neither FF nor I have defended this bakery.  I, myself have stated probably ten times in this thread that I would have served this couple.  However, both of us have defended personal freedoms, something the left literally despises.  You on the left have sold your souls to big government authoritarians.  

I have to believe that you are young and do not have a clue what freedom really is.  You seem to be intelligent, but you don't seem to have the faintest idea about what it means to live your own life and let others live their own.

The owners of this bakery are wrong and quite frankly their version of Christianity makes me cringe.  They definitely do not represent the Christ I trust for my salvation, at least not well. But, people have the right to be jerks.  I do not have to like the things you do.  I have to support your right to do it as long as you are not hurting others and the owners of the bakery did nothing at all to this couple except tell them they did not want to participate in their celebration.

Immie


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Yes gay mafia.

The Gay Mafia That's Redefining Liberal Politics - TIME

Gay Mafia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Do you have the relevant section?  I'm not going on a 30 page bug hunt...


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Yes gay mafia.
> 
> The Gay Mafia That's Redefining Liberal Politics - TIME
> 
> Gay Mafia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 

You obviously don;'t read your own links.

Bythe way:  the author of that Time piece is  gay and you seriously 

Do
Not
understand.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

Oh please the gay mafia attacked this couple and attacks anyone else that opposes the gay agenda.

Get real.  This is a kind of social war.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)




----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



"I would never own a slave myself but I support the right of others to do so."


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> .....



I'm not sure but I don't think we are allowed to link other message boards are we?


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



K&D is consistently inconsistent.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> I'm not sure but I don't think we are allowed to link other message boards are we?


OI just linked an image I found on google images.  

I'll remove the link if there's one attached.

ETA: Removed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> I would have thought that most Christians would be opposed to human cloning considering that it destroys a human embryo.



Cloning does not destroy embryos, it creates them. That doesn't mean there aren't moral questions to consider, it just shows that you really don't understand the issues.


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Yes, I think that this is how the left operates, and it is their signature operational standard these days upon how to deal with those who dis-agree with them, even if those who dis-agree are well within their rights to dis-agree, yet it is the way that they deal underhandedly with them in order to remove yet again one more obstacle in their way. The major problem is that they get the feds to go along with them on just about anything these days, and they mix these issues in with the whole civil rights thing, even if it doesn't apply in a lot of these cases, yet that is there power and their strength and they know it, and so they use it to their utmost advantage every chance that they can.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Hmmm, posted this as an article didn't get much play.  I worked on this for over an hour, maybe someone here will enjoy it...

"God's Children Queer" (to Green Eggs and Ham)


"Do you love
my children queer?"

I do not love them,
Father Dear,
I do not love
your children queer.

"Would you love them
Here or there?"

I would not love them
here or there.
I would not love them
anywhere.
I do not love
your children queer,
I do not love them,
Father Dear.

"Would you love them
in my house?
Would you love them
with a spouse?"

I do not love them
in your house.
I do not love them
with a spouse.
I do not love them
here or there.
I do not love them
anywhere.
I do not love your children queer.
I do not love them, Father Dear.


"Would you love them
as their boss?
Would you love them
on a cross?"

Not as their boss.
Not on a cross.
Not in your house.
Not with a spouse.
I would not love them here or there.
I could not love them anywhere.
I cannot not love your children queer.
I do not love them, Father Dear.

"Would you? Could you?
in a bar?
Meet them! Meet them!
Here they are."

I would not
could not,
in a bar

"You might love them.
If you could see.
You should meet them
in the street."

I would not, could not in the street.
Not in a bar! I will not meet!

I do not love them as their boss.
I do not love them on a cross
I do not love them in your house
I do not love them with a spouse
I do not love them here or there.
I do not love them anywhere.
I do not love your children queer.
I do not love them, Father Dear.

"The Scouts! The Scouts!
The Scouts! The Scouts!
Could you, would you
in the Scouts?"

Not in the Scoutsl! Not in the street!
Not in a bar! No Boys retreat.
I would not, could not, as their boss.
I could not, would not, on a cross.
I will not love them with a spouse
I will not love them in your house.
I will not love them here or there.
I will not love them anywhere.
I do not love them, Father Dear.


"Say!
In the park?
Here in the park!
Would you, could you, in the park?"

I would not, could not,
in the park.

"Would you, could you,
have a doubt?"

I would not, could not, have a doubt.
Not in the park. Not on the Scouts,
Not in a bar, Not in the street.
I do not love them, Dad, you see.
Not in your house. Not as their boss.
Not with a spouse. Not on a cross.
I will not love them here or there.
I do not love them anywhere!

"You do not love
my children queer?"

I do not
love them,
Father Dear.

"Could you, would you,
in your store?"

I would not,
could not.
in my store!

"Would you, could you,
in a war?"

I could not, would not, in a war.
I will not, will not, in my store.
I will not love them I do not doubt.
I will not love them in the Scouts.
Not in the park! Not in the street!
Not in a bar! I will not meet!
I do not love them as their boss.
I do not love them on a cross.
I will not love them in your house.
I do not love them with a spouse.
I do not love them here or there.
I do not love them ANYWHERE!

I do not love
your children queer
I do not love them,
Father Dear.

"You do not love them.
SO you say.
But you promised
To obey."

"My last command
before I left
"to love your neighbor
as yourself"."

"I didn't say
except the queers
Or to parse commands
Of Father Dear"

"But since you choose
to act like bums,
Last, you shall be
When Kingdom comes."

Oh Father Dear
Please let me in,
If you forgive.
I'll check again...

Say!
I love your children queer I do!!
I love them so Oh Father Dear!
And I would love them in my store!
And I would love them in a war...
And I will love them without doubt.
And in a park. And in the Scouts.
And in a bar. And in the street.
They are so good so good to meet!

So I will love them as their boss.
And I will love like them on a cross.
And I will love them in your house.
And I will love them with a spouse.
And I will love them here and there.
Say! I will love them ANYWHERE!

I do so love
your children queer!
It's good for me now,
That is clear!


----------



## Hoffstra (Sep 8, 2013)

According to Christianity, those to reject Christ are sinners and are anti-Christ.

Does that mean Christians should be able to refuse service to Jews?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Hoffstra said:


> According to Christianity, those to reject Christ are sinners and are anti-Christ.
> 
> Does that mean Christians should be able to refuse service to Jews?



Well, they did for about 1700 years.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Wow, you prove you are a leftist with every post.  Way to go.

Immie


----------



## Sunshine (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure I negged him earlier, but it is gone.  I guess he went whining to staff.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

If you want others to support your legal rights such as the right of free speech, then you *must* be willing to support the rights of those with whom you disagree.

Some here do not seem to understand that is the way things work.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Negged him? What for?  He has not been rude... just wrong as far as I am concerned.  That doesn't deserve a neg.

Immie


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



We don't need civil rights laws to protect people from harm, we simply need reasonable laws that make it illegal to hurt people. 

By the way, a Christian hostel has never refused to feed anyone as long as they have food, but a Christian owned restaurant should be free to not serve a group wearing Nazi symbols and loudly proclaiming their views on racial supremacy.

By the way, have you seen this map? It clearly demonstrates how decades of politicos that promote racial desegregation have fared in cities like Detroit.

http://www.wired.com/design/2013/08...shows-you/?mbid=social11197614#slideid-210341


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



>> We don't need civil rights laws to protect people from harm, we simply need reasonable laws that make it illegal to hurt people. 

Huh? What's the difference between civil rights laws that protect people from harm, and your so called "reasonable laws?"  Why do you think civil rights are "unreasonable?"

>> a Christian owned restaurant should be free to not serve a group wearing Nazi symbols and loudly proclaiming their views on racial supremacy

Duh.  What is the point in comparing gays with nazi's, what's the point of that?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Sunshine negs everyone that disagrees with her, every two days. I got tired of her constant negs every two days, so finally just put her on ignore.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Because you haven't looked?

I wonder why you have no trouble finding racist comments the bakers didn't make, but can't find things they did say.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



IT
DOES
NOT 
MATTER

They did not refuse to serve the couple. In fact, they had served them numerous times in the past, and had no problem with them coming back to the shop. All they did was refuse to make a cake for a ceremony they disagreed with.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Well, it's either nazis, pedophiles or bestiality...because that is the central theme of their arguments.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



That depends on the personal beliefs of the individual Jew, not your belief that your will trumps individual rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



You claim to have worked in a bakery and say stupid things like this?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I'm new, didn't even know what a neg was until yesterday.  I wouldn't neg a person for their opinion, but I will neg them for being a liar.

Congrats, you were my test case.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I see so they did not refuse to bake the cake for them, they just refused to bake the cake for them for the ceremony.  Yeah that's different than refusing to bake a cake for them based on discrimination.  NO wait, it's not different.  I'm confused.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The gay mafia at work.
> ...



Theirs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You do not keep a cake in the same fridge you keep other foods. The reason for this should be self explanatory, but since you have obviously never been within 1000 miles of a freshly baked cake, I will point out the obvious.

Cakes adsorb odors, and flavors, from other foods. This is why Tupperware sells a hermetically sealed cake dish.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Does this actually make sense to you?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



What I want to know is:

Does any of your hatred of Christians make any sense to you? You who wish for equality and tolerance..

And they did serve that couple plenty of other times with no issues. But this visit was the straw that broke the camel's back.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Again, does this answer make sense to you?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It does not matter what is in the Bible.  It does not matter what sort of ceremony was involved.  It doesn't matter what is and is not legal in Oregon.  It doesn't matter if the person developed his/her theology from Grimm's Fairy Tales or Adventures of the Great Spaghetti Monster.

The government at any level should have no power to require a citizen to go where the citizen does not choose to go or require a citizen to participate in something that the citizen does not wish to participate in.

And those who presume the moral authority to destroy the business and livelihood of a person or via threats or coercion drive a person out of business are violating one of our most fundamental unalienable rights:  the right to hold whatever convictions we choose to hold with impunity.  Those who would do that to somebody purely because they do not share the beliefs or convictions of a person are thugs, bullies, bigots, and evil.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Before I get started here, that particular r reporter did not win a Pulitzer, so bring up the Pulitzer just shows how desperate you are.

Now I am forced to point out that the reporter says he spoke with an employee of the bakery, not the owners.

This leads me left to wonder if the employee a) was speaking for the owners, b) had been getting hundreds of calls from hateful people, and as a result, c) might have been punking the reporter.

But, by all means, keep bringing up that story like it proves something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> gay mafia.
> 
> Geezez Christ you folks are such whackadoodles.



Just curious, what would you call a group that threatened people who employed a person who gave money to support Prop 8?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I never said I wished for equality and tolerance.  Fibbing again?


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Oregon's Civil Rights Laws have been on the books since 1958.

Some amendments have been added for other classes. 

Since 1958.



> Signing Oregon's Civil Rights Bill, 1953 // OrHi 44402​
> 
> 
> The proponents of Oregons Civil Rights Bill, also known as the  Public Accommodations Bill, pose for posterity.  Seated, from left:   Philip S. Hitchcock and Mark O. Hatfield.  Standing, from left:  Edgar  Williams, Marie Smith, Ulysses Plummer, Rev. J. Harold Jones, Lorna J.  Marple, Verdell Rutherford, and Otto G. Rutherford.
> ...



Oregon History Project

Some people have tried to get rid of it, as you can see above. 

Seeing it's been there for 60 years, and no doubt religious objections have been made in other cases, it doesn't appear any of them ever held up.

It's still there, and likely not going anywhere.

People are free to petition for repeal, but I doubt there would be much success.  Until then, people who open business that are open to the general public are going to have to accept the law or change the way they do business.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Your version of laws requires a photographer to attend a wedding even if she doesn't want to.

Your version of laws requires a black restaurant owner to serve David Duke.

Your version of law sucks.

I would tell you want it sucks, but it might violate the rules about bestiality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



It proves that their objection was not based on the couples sexual preference, it was based on what they wanted. Since you support bakers not baking cakes for a KKK rally, it must make sense to you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



The question is, why doesn't it make sense to you? Are you incapable of conceiving of an opinion that does not center around what the government approves or disapproves? Why is it only possible for them to object to the ceremony if the state calls it marraige?


----------



## blackhawk (Sep 8, 2013)

I wonder if any of the threats made against the christian couple would fall under the heading of hate crime if the threats were followed through on them? Would or should Eric Holder and the DOJ be investigating the threats made against them? On a side note I don't really care about gay marriage one way or the other if they want to make gay marriage legal fine whatever that said I'm getting a bit tired of gay people feeling like the whole country is supposed to cater to their every whim if you run across a baker or florist who does not want to do your even because of their religious beliefs just go to someone else I'm sure there are many out there who will take your money with no problem and stop making literally a federal case out of it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Oregon's Civil Rights Laws have been on the books since 1958.
> 
> Some amendments have been added for other classes.
> 
> ...



55 years of bad law is still bad law.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Hoffstra said:
> 
> 
> > According to Christianity, those to reject Christ are sinners and are anti-Christ.
> ...



Do you even know what you're talking about? 

Actually, the Jews were the predominant religion/culture. Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and from the death of Christ onwards, it appears the Jews were the ones going after Christians, in fact for over 300 years that was the case, until Constantine issued a creed of tolerance in 313 AD.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...


 Are you truly that witless or are you just a puppet? However, I have to agree with that statement. You liberals never wanted equality and tolerance, and it shows.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 8, 2013)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html

Hey everyone! This thread inspired me to set up a real business spoofing the bigotry
and promoting awareness of free spiritual healing. Please see above link to the announcement
before I really try to set up a website to promote this concept...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html
> 
> Hey everyone! This thread inspired me to set up a real business spoofing the bigotry
> and promoting awareness of free spiritual healing. Please see above link to the announcement
> before I really try to set up a website to promote this concept...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Oh, riiiight.  You can't see HOW the bakers have been dehumanized by essentially being told, "Your beliefs, your conscience, and your Constitional rights mean nothing before our demands on you, now do what we say or suffer", but I'll bet hard money you could RHAPSODIZE about how those lesbian twats were "dehumanized" by being told that someone didn't want to participate in their stupid fucking "wedding".

How much more dehumanized can a person get than to be told they must contribute their talents and labor toward a goal they oppose on behalf of someone they do not wish to work for, and that they have no rights in the matter?  We USED to call that slavery, and consider it the most dehumanizing experience imaginable.

And if you really think "Burn in hell, pig; fall off a cliff; stop associating with these people or suffer" is "exercising freedom of speech", then perhaps someone should send those messages to YOUR family and friends, and see if you still think that way.  Somehow, I think not.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html
> ...



Hi TK: I guess your reaction is appropriate given you believe no liberals are really
about inclusion.  I do recognize why Christians are divided about the gay issue,
because some cases are unnatural and can be healed, and people are excluding this knowledge.

So it's more like

WTF

Yes, I am a progressive Democrat, and Yes I believe in spiritual healing of
cases where homosexuality is not natural and the person wants to pray to be healed.

I believe that leaving this out of the gay marriage issue and the health care issue
is against the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of religious freedom.

So as a Constitutionalist first, before my own beliefs either way,
I believe all individual and group beliefs, whether religious political or secular,
should be included and protected equally, while conflicts are RESOLVED to prevent issues.

if funding and policies need to be separated, I think this can be done by PARTY
so I have NO PROBLEM with tolerating and including whatever beliefs people
have as long as responsibility is taken for them.  And not dumped on those who
believe differently and want to fund/represent their own values/principles separately.

I believe these things can be worked out.

So whatever perceptions you have of intolerant liberals who are closet bigots,
I probably agree with you!  That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address
the issue.  So I both acknowledge the mutual bigotry and seek solutions
that let people believe as they do without faulting either side of conflicts
for those differences. 

Thanks and I hope people like you and me on this board
can do more to change the environment so these conflicts 
can be resolved, and solutions found to all related political issues.

TK if we can solve this  problem,
we can learn how to address other problems as well.
So there is more to be gained than just this issue itself.

Hope to work with you and other who care as much as I do!

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Probably because it never happened anywhere but in your own diseased imagination, but even if it had - and I know this will shock you - but being rude STILL falls under the heading of "freedom of speech".

There is NOTHING that is going to justify, "You don't like the people I tell you to.  I'm going to kill your family, I hope your kids die, my friends and I are going to destroy your business to force you to kowtow to us."

You and your ilk are filthy, hypocritical, bigoted vermin.  You are what you claim to hate, but to an exponential power.  Own it.  You have nothing bad to say about these bakers, because even if they had done every lie you try to pin on them, they STILL would be better people than you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > As I said before simply baking a cake for someone in no way makes the baker liable for the sins of the customer.
> ...



Katz, PLEASE get off this "attending the wedding was the problem" kick.  It wasn't.  They wanted no participation in or contribution to the wedding in any form, because they considered the entire event to be contrary to their religious beliefs.  There was no "make it and send it with someone else" solution that would have solved it.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



I was with you Emily until you used the words "closet bigots" with respect to progressives ie "intolerant liberals".  In fact, after those words, I caught up again.  It seems apparent to me that the vast majority of progressives are bigots and not a one of them hide that fact in the closet.  

Immie


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



I will end this notion that Christians are divided about homosexuality right here and now. Homosexuality goes against the divine order of the human race God set into motion in Genesis. In the New Testament, people who knowingly participate in this behavior are given away by God to their sinful and unnatural passions. It speaks to the fact that God does not approve of it, and thusly, I disapprove. You had me reeled in for a minute there, but I can hardly believe a "Progressive Democrat" could ever espouse what is written in your post. I smell a lie.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Dear TK and RKMB:

I think Paperview gave a good example of dehumanization:



			
				paperview said:
			
		

> Not just refused service, the lesbian walked into a bakery and asked to have a wedding cake made. Happy repeat customer.
> 
> Owner informs her he doesn't do same-sex wedding cakes and then proceeds to tell her she was an abomination, and that her "money is not equal."
> 
> Temmy-boy leaves that part out.



Two wrongs don't make a right; just like eye for an eye means losing two eyes.

A. If the owner expressed their religious beliefs in a way that demeaned
and insulted a human being (not condemning the action but judging the person individually)
that is dehumanizing on the part of the recipient of such a rebuke
NOT DONE In the spirit of Forgiveness and Healing which is the spirit of Christ

B. If the response was equally unchristian, ie not for the sake of RESTORING
good faith relations, but to condemn the PERSONS not rebuking the offensive act,
then THAT is equally dehumanizing.  What attempt was made to CORRECT anything?
All that was done was to protest, attack and judge the business owners.

It is faulting and attacking the PERSON as representing the Action.

So instead of CORRECTING the issue,
in both sides the PERSONS were made to feel PUNISHED and JUDGED

This Was NOT to restore the relationships.

It was NOT in the spirit of corrections.

So both sides lost.

A. person A is still seen as not acknowledging acts considered abominations
so that did NOT solve the problem

B. business people were judged and punished
WITHOUT giving them equal opportunity to remedy the situation

If this part is corrected, that might save the relationship
and sense of humanity for the people on both sides of the issue.

Thanks RKMB for asking and trying to understand what the upset is about.
I hope more people look into BOTH SIDES as well as solutions so
we can grow in our humanity and not lose it!

I did not understand FoxFyre's posts until I msg'd personally
to get it. FF did not come across that way in the msgs posted here,
but sounded like something else to me. I can't imagine what my
msgs/posts must sound like if I did not understand FF either!

Yours truly,
Emily
__________________


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The fact you are agreeing with paperview, RKMB and alfalfa only confirm my suspicions about you. You cannot hide your bias under the cloak of neutrality. Good day, miss.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually.  Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfusication on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple.  I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



I see.

But the fact is, such gullibility cannot be ignored. She goes looking for things that closely match her ideals, and then at the same time wants to strike this balance you speak of. To a lesser extent though, I will remain suspicious. Although I was just as wayward once. Liberals will always and forever remain an enigma to me.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Yeah, all those posts about this couple being pranked into doing cakes for cults, then the claim they called them abominations.. it's all a smear campaign.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



They were not asked to sanctify a gay wedding.  They were asked to bake a cake. They refused based on their bigotry against gays.  Case closed.

You have your panties in a twist because some gays are accused by the bigots of daring to picket against them for what they did.  

Intentional Obfuscation?  Where did I obfuscate?  

You are deflecting to me.  It's not about me or you.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state.  That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.

I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves. 

People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and  were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 8, 2013)

Hi TK:
1. So are you saying that Christians who tolerate cases of homosexuality as "spiritually born
that way" (by the Bible passage some "eunuchs" are made by God and some by man)
are NOT "real Christian" and that is how you explain the Christians are not divided?

Also, do you recognize that some Christians do not believe in spiritual healing through
deliverance prayer, that they believe this is demonic or spiritism and manipulating the
will of God.  So that the CHristians who actively heal homosexuality are not in unison
with those who (a) do not know or believe homosexuality can be healed or (b) do 
not believe that spiritual healing is authorized by God or Christ (b1) if NOBODY should
be doing it or (b2) the Catholic church believes only ordained priests can do exorcisms

2. about being a progressive Democrat
YES, I am registered and work to resolve issues in Democrat Precinct 30
where Black Democrat hypocrites have DESTROYED a national historic district of
FREED SLAVE churches and African American civil rights history and even gravesites.

The only way I could address such corruption and destruction is to work
WITH and WITHIN the liberal Democrat party and surrounding progressive networks.
To bring in the missing principles of Constitution and respect for Christian churches
to preserve their own history which the secular City of Houston has allowed destroyed.

The person apptd by our Democrat Mayor announced at a public forum that the
reason the City has not worked with Freedmen's Town churches on a plan to 
preserve this Nationally Historic church district was "separation of church and state"

So this is why we need A CONSTITUTIONALIST to get involved or else nobody
would enforce equal religious freedom and protections of Christian churches
instead of discriminating against the church community for being
1. poor (having no money to buy the land, preserve the churches, etc.
and no knowledge of how to finance loans or business plans to sustain their church community)
2. black (and thus tied to black leaders who have sold them out while leaving them
unable to address this, since the current stage the black community is in
is to rally around Obama Sheila Jackson Lee and all the ministers who speak out
nationally but don't do anything to save Freedmens' Town history)
3. Christian (where as long as they keep forgiving and don't want to sue the
City for constitutional violations, then the City keeps on its current track of
not respecting constitutional laws because they aren't legally required without a lawsuit.
the City of Houston is a private municipality and takes full advantage to do business
however it can justify, and does not commit to follow Constitutional restraints first)

So all my friends who are Constitutionalists don't believe I should be working
with the Democrat party either. They all tell me I'm with the wrong camp.

But Jesus did not come to heal the well.
He came to heal the sick.

So if you want to stop violations and abuses against Constitutional law,
you have to go to where the ppl are who are not following it
and teach them to correct the problem.

The Dems will only listen to their own supporters and voters.
So I have to educate all the members and voters in order to teach
the damn Democrats to following the Constitution first.

And if that doesn't work, then I believe in separating parties like religions
and let Dems have their own denomination and not ask me or 
anyone else to fund or be under their policies if that's not Constitutional by 
our standards and beliefs.

So yes, I am with the Democrats and liberal progressives.

Most of my friends into sustainable soltuions work with either
Greens or Peace and Justice groups and have issues with Dems
being hypocrites and sell outs, So it's not like we are ignoring the problem.

The last tie I went to a meeting with Greens/Progressives trying to reform
things within the Dem Party, one member said she RESENTED having
to work with that party but that was the best option to organize and get things
going at all.

I end up working with independent Republicans Libertarians Green
Occupy and Tea Party also, anyone who puts Constitutional ethics and laws
before party politics. So it's astruggle to find people in all parties willing to go there.

There are Good Germans like me within any group.
We just have to find each other and work to reform whole groups
that go off on their tangents and biases.

Thanks for asking TK

most ppl think I cannot be a liberal Democrat either.
and a Constitutionalist
no way!




TemplarKormac said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



LOL.  Well it is refreshing to hear somebody be honest about their changing views over time, and admitting that we don't always get it right.  That is very rare on these message boards.  But I imagine a lot of us have held convictions that just didn't make it over time or in the face of better information or in the light of superior reason and logic, and we have changed our position about this or that. 

But Emily and everybody else is every bit as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as is anybody else, including the Christian bakers AND the gay couple who tried to order a wedding cake from them.

Nobody has shaken my belief in the principle I hold as conviction on this though.  It doesn't matter if the Christian baker is right or wrong.  It doesn't matter if the gay couple is right or wrong.

What DOES matter is that each has an unalienable right to be right or wrong with impunity so long as no participation or contribution is required of anybody else.  To require the bakers to acquiesce to the demands of the gay couple is not acceptable any more than it would be acceptable for the Christian bakers to demand the gay couple denounce their homosexuality. 

The hatemongers and bigots of the world want to force, demand, or coerce others into adopting and professing a single point of view.  It isn't enough for them to live and let live.  They seek to punish and destroy those who refuse to toe the political correctness line.

And that is evil.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



1. No, but they were asked to service it, to enable it. It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. 

2. Read 1. 

3. Far from it.

4. But then you make a sexist comment towards Foxfyre? Of all the people on this board, she is the most mild mannered person. Never does she "have her panties in a wad." Guess what, RKM, that was a truly bigoted comment against women. Hope you're happy now.

5. Obfuscation by repetition. You continue to call this couple bigots without even trying to prove they are. All you and your friends can do is go on tirades about how this couple are bigots. It's quite intellectually dishonest, to tell the truth.

6. Step off your pedestal, sir. Spewing anecdotes will not erase the lack of an argument.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Read up folks.  Things you will learn on this thread:  baking a cake with two brides on the top is now like forcing a "flaming homo" to gay marry a straitz.  At gunpoint!


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> The religious rights and beliefs of this Christian couple were violated.  There is no way around it.   The gay mafia won.


To me it wasn't just their rights that were violated. The rights of everyone else in the area were violated too. People who had nothing to do with the problem may have liked going to that bakery too and now they have to find another one to go to. What about the rights of them people? Did the homosexual group who got the place shut down ever once stop to think of them people? Obviously never because all that they cared about were their own selves. To me, the homosexual group could have just washed their hands of the place and found somewhere else to go, but no, they had to make sure that everyone paid for what they thought that just a select few were guilty of and that is having the freedom to exercise what they believe.   

God bless you and those who have paid always!!!

Holly

P.S. I hate when people who have nothing to do with the situation end up losing something too!


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yes, it's _exactly_ like that....


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



1. I have no issue with people having their own opinions. It's when they force them on others that I gird myself for battle. Honesty is my weapon of choice.

2. Those who fear something or oppose something because of that fear will always demand individual acquiescence to such fears, so as to assuage those fears. Homosexuals for instance... I need not elaborate their patterns of behavior, you have such examples on this very thread. Men who do evil don't want evil done upon them, which is evil in itself.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Sounds like to me you're out of points to argue. Have a seat.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Read up folks.  Things you will learn on this thread:  baking a cake with two brides on the top is now like forcing a "flaming homo" to gay marry a straitz.  At gunpoint!



Same goes for you as well. Your lack of intellectual honesty is not at all surprising.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

You can always tell when they are losing the argument by the shrillness of their ripostes.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> You can always tell when they are losing the argument by the shrillness of their ripostes.



I can always discern the intelligence of a poster by how many times he or she has a quip or an insult instead of a cogent point.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



That's exactly what it is. 

Same as if it was the Westboro scum, KKK scum, the bigot bakery or Rick Santorum. 

Which one of those do you rw's believe should  be stopped, punished?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Case in point. 

The KKK was founded by Democrats, thus you own them, LN. I hope at some point Westboro will suffer for their impunty. And what on Earth did Rick Santorum say that got you so riled up about him?

And you have nothing to prove that says the bakery was being bigoted on purpose. In fact, I fail to see where they were bigoted at all.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The religious rights and beliefs of this Christian couple were violated.  There is no way around it.   The gay mafia won.
> ...



So, katzen's imaginary suspension of rights for christians is just oh so terribly wrong but taking the same rights away from the gays is okay?

Just what laws would you and katzen like passed in order to stop gays from demonstrating. 

Hint: think First Amendment.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

This thread seems to have proven that perpetual motion, of a sorts, is, in fact possible! I like to check in every couple of days to see where it has headed. Now, I see that the baker who lost his customers and went out of business, is equivenelent to "It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. ". Now, under some circumstances, I would be forced by my couriosity to research this twisted path of logic, but, I would rather just let my imagination be my guide as to how this consclusion was reached! I'll be back in a couple of days, and I am sure that somehow or another, Hitler, JFK's assasination , and global warming will somehow be tied into this issue....


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wrong
Wrong
Doubtful
Everything

Where, in the First Amendment, do you find the words, "on purpose"? Since when does "on purpose" enter into anything at all?

They made the decision not to serve certain customers. Those customers made that fact known to the neighborhood and the people "voted" by taking their business elsewhere. 

What should be changed?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The religious rights and beliefs of this Christian couple were violated.  There is no way around it.   The gay mafia won.
> ...



Seriously?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I'll argue again when I stop laughing.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Amazingly, yes. I do believe she is serious. 

Thing is, some believe that "equal" just does not apply to certain people.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> This thread seems to have proven that perpetual motion, of a sorts, is, in fact possible! I like to check in every couple of days to see where it has headed. Now, I see that the baker who lost his customers and went out of business, is equivenelent to "It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. ". Now, under some circumstances, I would be forced by my couriosity to research this twisted path of logic, but, I would rather just let my imagination be my guide as to how this consclusion was reached! I'll be back in a couple of days, and I am sure that somehow or another, Hitler, JFK's assasination , and global warming will somehow be tied into this issue....



In a couple days these 2 bakers will be nominated for beatification...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

Can even one of you say exactly what should be different in this situation?

What should be changed?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



I can't believe you finally condemned the left for their actions.  I guess it is true that there is a first time for everything.

Immie


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



Of course they do...it's just they also believe by virtue of them being xtians they are more equal then everyone else.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> This thread seems to have proven that perpetual motion, of a sorts, is, in fact possible! I like to check in every couple of days to see where it has headed. Now, I see that the baker who lost his customers and went out of business, is equivenelent to "It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. ". Now, under some circumstances, I would be forced by my couriosity to research this twisted path of logic, but, I would rather just let my imagination be my guide as to how this consclusion was reached! I'll be back in a couple of days, and I am sure that somehow or another, Hitler, JFK's assasination , and global warming will somehow be tied into this issue....



You missed the hitler accusations. It was a few pages back.  Apparently protesting against christian bigotry is equivalent to hitlar, and current skin head nazis. I believe they were also called murders, rapists, and child molesters.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



If the bakers actions caused people to choose to shop elsewhere, so be it.  I would have no problem with that.  I choose to shop somewhere else all the time because of the surly attitude, indifference, incompetence, or whatever that I encounter in a place of business.

But I don't send them e-mails telling them they should die or their wife should be raped.  I don't solicit and threaten their customers and suppliers or otherwise try to destroy their business and livelihood.  I would hope that the days of the Inquisition and all other forms of 'political or religious purity' are long gone and that the U.S.A. represents the best in recognition and protection of unalienable rights.  Unalienable rights that allows each of us to believe and hold whatever convictions we hold with impunity.

If the baker was actively engaged in an assault or efforts to harm or violate the rights of those in the gay community, I would be right out there picketing with you.  That should not be tolerated in a moral society.

But to attack and punish these people purely because they hold a belief or conviction not shared by everybody else?   That is wrong.  That is unAmerican.  And that is evil.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

They chose to open a business in a state that has these LAWS.

If they don't like it, then they are free to go to a state where that is not the LAW.

Aren't conservatives the State's Rights crowd?  Guess not.

Nothing is stopping them from opening up a business with no  discrimination laws against sexual orientation, and then, if a gay  couple asks for a wedding cake, they can tell them they can go drink a  dick without worry of breaking the LAW.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

It should serve as an object lesson to Christians to be more careful as to the people they offer services to.  They have a precedent.  Use it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Yes, while having a seat. You sir, are not the real slim shady.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> They chose to open a business in a state that has these LAWS.
> 
> If they don't like it, then they are free to go to a state where that is not the LAW.
> 
> ...



Wasn't it federal law as well? I suppose of Obama's boys won't prosecute...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > They chose to open a business in a state that has these LAWS.
> ...



Prosecute what?

Name calling?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> But to attack and punish these people purely because they hold a belief or conviction not shared by everybody else?   That is wrong.  That is unAmerican.  And that is evil.



Proof?  What punishment?  What attack?  Any proof whatsoever of these evil attacks that you keep repeating again and again and again?  

The bigoted baker's accusation?  That's your proof of "evil" attacks and punishments?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



And, right on cue, look what crawled out from under its rock.



> It should serve as an object lesson to Christians to be more careful as to the people they offer services to. They have a precedent. Use it.



Those bakers are anything BUT "christian". 

.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > This thread seems to have proven that perpetual motion, of a sorts, is, in fact possible! I like to check in every couple of days to see where it has headed. Now, I see that the baker who lost his customers and went out of business, is equivenelent to "It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. ". Now, under some circumstances, I would be forced by my couriosity to research this twisted path of logic, but, I would rather just let my imagination be my guide as to how this consclusion was reached! I'll be back in a couple of days, and I am sure that somehow or another, Hitler, JFK's assasination , and global warming will somehow be tied into this issue....
> ...


They've already been anointed  on Fox News (yes, the National one - with Brian the Douchy!) for induction into the daily Fox News Tortured and Tormented Conservative Victim Club, which at last count was ...'pert near the approximate population count of the Republican party.

Status!


----------



## beagle9 (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


The government has been in the business of social & cultural change for quite sometime now, and it has been infiltrated over time by those who sought after it and it's offices in order to get the change that they have wanted for so long now, and so they are using the power of the government in which they have taken over, in order to enforce and force that change upon this nation regardless of what the majority thinks about it. This is a problem, and many people are seeing this now with every situation that involves the government these days, and where the government is now seen openly taking clear sides in all of this now.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > This thread seems to have proven that perpetual motion, of a sorts, is, in fact possible! I like to check in every couple of days to see where it has headed. Now, I see that the baker who lost his customers and went out of business, is equivenelent to "It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. ". Now, under some circumstances, I would be forced by my couriosity to research this twisted path of logic, but, I would rather just let my imagination be my guide as to how this consclusion was reached! I'll be back in a couple of days, and I am sure that somehow or another, Hitler, JFK's assasination , and global warming will somehow be tied into this issue....
> ...


And don't forget slavery.  The bakers are like chattel. Bondsmen in the grip of the murderous Gay Mafia!


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


I'm as serious as 9/11. 

God bless you always!!! 

Holly

P.S. Maybe if the homosexual group had shown some respect for the beliefs that the bakery owners possess, they would have eventually gotten some respect in return, but because of what they decided to go and do to the bakery, they most definitely will most likely not be getting any respect. All that they did was give people reason to recent them even more.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > They chose to open a business in a state that has these LAWS.
> ...


No.  Sexual orientation is not covered under Federal Law.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But to attack and punish these people purely because they hold a belief or conviction not shared by everybody else?   That is wrong.  That is unAmerican.  And that is evil.
> ...



Good question. 

The only "evidence" I've seen is from the phony christians on this board. 

Anyone?


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

beagle9 said:


> ... This is a problem, and many people are seeing this now with every situation that involves the government these days, *and where the government is now seen openly taking clear sides in all of this now*.


Civic Lesson:  People elect reps to vote on laws. Governors to sign laws.

Laws get enacted.
People don't like laws, they can call for repeal or adjustments or use the Courts to amend or remove said laws.

They also have this thing called elections to remove or affirm those reps.

It's called the Republic ....:flag:  for Which it Stands...:flag:

The government will *"take sides" *based on the ____

Can you complete that sentence?  Bet you can.  

It starts with an L and I've used the word five times in this post.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


I would have thought 42 USC § 2000a Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.  But I may be wrong.  Perhaps bakeries are not covered.  Perhaps discrimination against gays is legal.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Interesting ok thx.  Is there a list of groups of people we are legally allowed to discriminate against?  I wonder if the gay couple was black, would that have made it illegal?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I've got to admit that the gay mafia thing has me spooked. These guys can be meaner than snakes. I hear that Richard Simmons is secretly an enforcer, and has been known to tie up non complaint straights, prop their eyelids open with toothpicks, and sit them down in front of a continous loop of "Sweating to the Oldies' DVD, interspered with songs by the Beegees, and interior decorating infomercials. It's enough to break any man....


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Only if they discriminated against  them because  they were black. 

See Equal Rights Amendment 1964.


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



A leftist or an asshole?

Oh! Sorry


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The long-eyelashed, purty mouthed homosechshuals forcing the Goodly Godly white straight christians to gay marry 'em are the true menace.

That's what the SoCons tell me anyway.


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I think the slavery remark rises to the level of slapping.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


So I could discriminate against blacks and other democrats by accusing them of being gay.  Hmm... sounds like a loophole.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> They chose to open a business in a state that has these LAWS.
> 
> If they don't like it, then they are free to go to a state where that is not the LAW.
> 
> ...



If they broke a law then fine.  Let the authorities who enforce the law deal with it.  Don't organize a hateful e-mail campaign with the most horrendous content, don't threaten people, their families, their customers, their vendors out of moral outrage.   If the Christian bakers are not allowed to hold their own beliefs and convictions in peace and follow their own conscience that requires no participation or contribution from anybody else, then who among us can be free?

And if it is ourage that it was Christian bakers who broke the law and therefore must be punished, but everybody else who breaks the law can be forgiven or ignored or shrugged off, then who are the true bigots in this case?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

*Homosexuals stripping heterosexuals of their rights may only make heterosexuals fight harder in making sure that homosexuals do not get any rights when all is said and done.*

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


That southern christians   engaged in, supported and propagated slavery and justified it in their churches via bible scripture? 

That remark?

Alfalfa was absolutely correct.  It's painful, but it is a fact.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> *Homosexuals stripping heterosexuals of their rights may only make heterosexuals fight harder in making sure that homosexuals do not get any rights when all is said and done.*
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly



Sounds like a threat to me! I'm complaining to Foxfyre!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



Maybe if those phony christians had respected the private and personal lives of their customers, none of this would have happened. 

Maybe if phony christians would mind their own fucking business, people would buy their product. 

If phony christians are going to reuse to serve someone because their "god" hates his own creations (in this case, gays), they will have no choice but to deal with the backlash that their nasty, backward bigotry got them.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> *Homosexuals stripping heterosexuals of their rights may only make heterosexuals fight harder in making sure that homosexuals do not get any rights when all is said and done.*
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly



Really??

Where did that happen?

Hint: its not the phony christian bakers. They did this to themselves. 

Even one example??


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > They chose to open a business in a state that has these LAWS.
> ...


Oh, so the lesbian couple are allowed to make a complaint that their rights were violated, but don't you dare let them utilize free speech to let people know their rights were violated.

Free Speech for me and not for thee.  I see.

Anyone who has violated the law making harmful threats or do anything beyond engaging in free speech to organize boycotts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.   

To date, no one has produced *anything *to show a complaint was filed where there were unlawful threats.  Simply the words of the baker, who -- has not filed a complaint.  Whose fault is that if there really was a law broken?

Or maybe he was making it up.  Hmmm.  

Organizing boycotts is not against the law.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > *Homosexuals stripping heterosexuals of their rights may only make heterosexuals fight harder in making sure that homosexuals do not get any rights when all is said and done.*
> ...


Its not a threat. Its a heads up. The more that this kind of thing happens, the less likely that the homosexual people will get what it is that they want. Why should they get what they want when all that they care about is themselves anyways? Selfishness will get a person absolutely no where.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Organizing campaigns to destroy a person's livelihood for no better reason than the person holds a belief or conviction that you don't agree with may not be illegal.  But it sure as hell is wrong.  It is unAmerican.  And it is evil.

And a pox on anybody's house who condones it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



A couple of people have asked for proof.  

Including me. 

Where is the proof of this happening?


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Better contact the American Family Association, and the One Million Moms  Campaign, and about 20 other 'Christian' organizations that work to promote boycotts of things they find offensive and want to remove and/or put out of business.

Boycotts are *part* of America ferchissakes. Our revolution STARTED with a boycott. 

 Free Speech is wrong now?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



You're not seeing the obvious here. 

First, its not a matter of choosing to give them rights that they already have. They are US citizens and these phony christians don't get to decide which Americans get "equal" rights. 

Second, demanding the rights you were born to is not "selfish". It is their right. 

Third, you are obviously another phony christian. If you were the real thing and if you were a real American, you would be fighting for the rights that gays already have. 

You keep typing that really phony "god bless you" when, in fact, that's not what you're doing. See, you can't simultaneously be a hate-filled bigot AND a child of god.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them. 

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > They chose to open a business in a state that has these LAWS.
> ...




No, federal Public Accommodation law does not list sexual orientation.



>>>>


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I've also asked these good christians what they would change so this could not happen to any other fake christian bakers but not one of them has answered. 

They post here every day about how some people should not have the rights guaranteed them by our Constitution but not one of these cowards has the balls to admit what they're really saying. 

But, if we want to know what they would change, all we have to do is read about their adoration of Putin and their siding against their own country.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

You know...this is where the rubber meets the road for some of the defenders of these bigoted bakers.

Cons have been wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Act for some time now.  They tell us any company that discriminated would soon find itself out of business if they did, 

(memba? memba? memba?)

because people would spread the word and others, either overtly or by simply not patronizing  would find themselves not doing business with discriminators and THAT'S how it should work now.

So here we have exactly that happening  -- and ba da boom!  Nope Nope Nope.

Don't you DARE spread the word these people are discriminating!  For Jeezuz.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Then WHAT ON EARTH have we been discussing all this time?! If Federal Public Accommodation Law does not list sexual orientation, the bakery was well within their rights. Federal Law trumps state law. Period.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Hey you big ole student of history you!

 "Led by vocal orators such as James Otis and Patrick Henry,* the  colonists began a massive boycott of British goods* causing colonial  imports to fall from £2,250,000 in 1764, to £1,944,000 in 1765.  In  several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty"  formed."

American Revolution Causes - Causes of the American Revolution - Revolutionary War Causes


----------



## Zona (Sep 8, 2013)

blah blah blah...if you refuse service to someone due their sexual preference, then expect to be boycotted, called out and exposed as a bigot.  Stop your fucking crying and deal with the fact that there are consequences to being a bigot.  

Its the american way.  Its business.  

On a personal note, if I owned a business, I would stay in the MIDDLE on pretty much every issue.  Pretty much.  I would not scr3eam I am a democrat because I know I would alienate half the potential customers.  Thats just good business sense unless my business was political in some way.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Organizing campaigns to destroy a person's livelihood for no better reason than the person holds a belief or conviction that you don't agree with may not be illegal.  But it sure as hell is wrong.  It is unAmerican.  And it is evil.
> 
> And a pox on anybody's house who condones it.




You should tell that to the American Family Association that routinely organizes boycotts of companies they deam to be "gay friendly" such as:

7-Eleven, 
Abercrombie & Fitch, 
American Airlines, 
American Girl, 
Blockbuster Video, 
Burger King, 
Calvin Klein, 
Carl's Jr., 
Clorox, 
Comcast, 
Crest, 
Ford, 
Hallmark Cards, 
Hardee's, 
Kmart, 
Kraft Foods, 
S. C. Johnson & Son, 
Movie Gallery, 
Microsoft, 
MTV, 
Mary Kay, 
NutriSystem, 
Old Navy, 
IKEA, Sears, 
Pampers, 
Procter & Gamble, 
Target, 
Tide, 
Walt Disney Company, 
and PepsiCo



>>>>


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Read the title again my edumacated friend. 

Causes is plural, not singular. From your link:

"On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act with the goal of aiding the struggling British East India Company. Prior to the passage of the law, the company had been required to sell its tea through London where it was taxed and duties assessed. Under the new legislation, the company would be permitted to sell tea directly to the colonies without the additional cost. As a result, tea prices in America would be reduced, with only the Townshend tea duty assessed. Aware that this was an attempt by Parliament to break the colonial boycott of British goods, groups such as the Sons of Liberty, spoke out against the act.

Across the colonies, British tea was boycotted and attempts were made to produce tea locally. In Boston, the situation climaxed in late November 1773, when three ships carrying East India Company tea arrived in the port. *Rallying the populace, the members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans and boarded the ships on the night of December 16. Carefully avoiding damaging other property, the "raiders" tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. A direct affront to British authority, the "Boston Tea Party" forced Parliament to take action against the colonies."*

Yeah. I have you beat in the history department. The formation of the group and the boycotting were precursors. The actual destruction of goods and property was the last straw. 

Next.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

Hell, Christains have been boycotting Disney off and on for decades, ever since they started designating certain days as special days at the Disney Parks for gays.


----------



## Zona (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



So what you are saying is those mean ol tough gays made them close shop?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

Zona said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



The gay mafia came out and threatened the bakers with hair drying guns....


----------



## Zona (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Hell, Christains have been boycotting Disney off and on for decades, ever since they started designating certain days as special days at the Disney Parks for gays.



Mean ol christians...


----------



## Zona (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




The complaint was not filed under any Federal law, the complaint was filed under the Oregon State Statute that deals with Public Accommodation.

The Oregon State Statute does not conflict with Federal law.  It lists additional areas where discrimination is illegal in the State.  Federal law is silent on discrimination based on sexual orientation and therefore the Supremacy Clause is not active.  Oregon is permitted to enact more restrictive laws under powers granted by the 10th Amendment, they cannot write laws that are more lax - which Oregon didn't do.


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


It STARTED with the Stamp Act, you dunce.

I've made my living in the field of history for several decades now.

Try again Mr. Magoo.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The conflict is in that one allows for sexual orientation while the other does not. I see a direct conflict. Right there. Since most state laws are crafted based off of federal precedent, I do think the Supremacy Clause is in effect here. That couple can go over the State of Oregon and say they were well within their rights as it pertained to Federal Law.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Hell, Christains have been boycotting Disney off and on for decades, ever since they started designating certain days as special days at the Disney Parks for gays.



Disney does not conduct "Gay Days".  They neither organize or endorse the event.  The events are organized by external groups that simply organize a date.

As an example, Busch Garden's Williamsburg is just up the road.  If my computer club organizes and get's other computer clubs to organize the 1st Saturday in Sepetember we will all meet at Busch Garden's and we will all wear T-Shirts with "Nerd Day" on them.  That isn't an event organized by Busch Gardens.


>>>>


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 8, 2013)

How 'bout the Million Mother Bigots who got all bent about that filthy pig wanting to have sex with the human in the geico commercial?

Never mind that there were really only 20-30 of those sex-starved old biddies, the issue is basically the same - consumers speaking their minds.

Well rw bigots?

Should you be able to act like assholes over cartoon pigs while denying Americans the right to make their opinions known?

Is there even one rw bigot with the gumption to admit they want the Constitution amended to read "equal rights to some"?

Hypocrites.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Nope. It was the action of destruction, not the enaction of a bill in British Parliament. A direct show of rebellion in the face of authority is what triggered it. The destruction of the tea is what forced the crown to act. 

Don't lie to me either, you are far from an expert of history. Right off the bat you misapplied the link you gave me, so that tells me you are a selective history aficionado, not an actual student of history.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



In Federal court you would be right.

But the case isn't in Federal court, it's in State court where the Oregon law applies.


>>>>


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


I was going to mention that, too, Paper, but considered the source of the post, and just decided to move on.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


Another thing that you seem to not see is the fact that the bakery people have the right to refuse service to anyone that they want to.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Oh and if I hated anyone, I would be another one of them people that you see on the news that is guilty of blowing in half those that I hate.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



But the Bakery is not only subject to State Law, but Federal Law as well. That presents a conflict in this regard. In my studies of the justice system, I learned that Federal Law will trump State Law in any matter of law or crime brought before the courts.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

"Holly

P.S. Oh and if I hated anyone, I would be another one of them people that you see on the news that is guilty of blowing in half those that I hate. "

Well, I guess the less said about that, the better....


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> "Holly
> 
> P.S. Oh and if I hated anyone, I would be another one of them people that you see on the news that is guilty of blowing in half those that I hate. "
> 
> Well, I guess the less said about that, the better....



Well, I guess the less you troll, the better.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Karma has a way of coming around and some of the Jesusy folk on this  thread and those saying such nasty things about gays and lesbians will  one day find themselves blessed...with a gay child.   

Life has  a way of shaking up bigots.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state.  That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.
> 
> I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves.
> 
> People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and  were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.



And you said you don't doubt what they said in the claim is true. You have no idea whether the statement was true or not. Yet, you choose to believe them based on your prejudice and bias.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Actually, she is fighting for the rights that gays "already have".  It is those on your side on this site and the homosexual community who threatened and cajoled these people,  who are wrong in their interpretation of the Gospel, and their vendors into submission that are striving to remove rights from people they hate.  

Immie


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Karma has a way of coming around and some of the Jesusy folk on this  thread and those saying such nasty things about gays and lesbians will  one day find themselves blessed...with a gay child.
> 
> Life has  a way of shaking up bigots.



A classical flame out. Nothing more to discuss here. You just said the very same things those gay groups said to the bakery. Perhaps you will one day be blessed with compassion. Though I doubt it. You wouldn't know the first thing about how to exercise it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state.  That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.
> ...



It has to be true. Or his/her argument is turned completely on it's head.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 8, 2013)

Paper, 
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case.  There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws.  State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.  



>>>>


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Zona said:


> blah blah blah...if you refuse service to someone due their sexual preference, then expect to be boycotted, called out and exposed as a bigot.  Stop your fucking crying and deal with the fact that there are consequences to being a bigot.
> 
> Its the american way.  Its business.
> 
> On a personal note, if I owned a business, I would stay in the MIDDLE on pretty much every issue.  Pretty much.  I would not scr3eam I am a democrat because I know I would alienate half the potential customers.  Thats just good business sense unless my business was political in some way.



Boycotting would have been fine.  The boycott went beyond the limits of reasonableness when they started threatening people and intimidating vendors.

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state.  That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.
> ...


Richtbackatacha.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Paper,
> I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.


Thank you for sharing your experiences and it's wonderful you grew above it to treat all equally.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Paper,
> I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.


What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist? 

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Perhaps.  Remember Obama has joined with Mexico in suing republican states, regarding laws related to immigration.

I think it "depends" on what the president says is in the perview of the feds.  IOW they could claim public accommodation is federal based on the commerce clause.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Paper,
> ...


Oh dear dear.

<just shaking head>


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I gather there needs not be any prohibition. The State law itself would still contradict the First Amendment, which is itself Federal in nature. Thus the conflict still stands. I would as a judge rule in favor of the Bakery, because as the public accommodation law in Oregon stands, it prevents freedom of religious expression, which is expressly implied and protected by the First Amendment. 

The nature of the expression is the fact the couple refused service based on religious conviction, not on the sole intent to discriminate against anyone. Given what services they offer, somehow they felt that if they had accepted, they would be participating in something morally reprehensible to their faith.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. *If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist? *
> ...


To me, if one side is allowed to play the game, so can another side.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Two sides are needed for a game to take place anyways.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state.  That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.
> 
> I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves.
> 
> People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and  were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.



And we know gay people never lie.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Paper,
> ...



Too bad for both of you that I am a Georgian, in the center of what you would call the "Deep South." What Vandal will try to convince you of is that all of us Christians down here are still bigoted, homophobic and intolerant racists, who cling to our guns and religion. There's a big difference between the Christians of that era and the Christians here today. Both of you will stereotype us no matter how much we've changed. It's pretty pathetic to be quite honest. Sad even. 

Perhaps you two need to take long hard looks in mirrors before you start stereotyping people. "Why don't I do it first?" you ask? I'm not the one saying people of faith should be blessed with a gay child. Sicko.


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

And we know christians never lie, right?

Abominations!


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I have given a link to the photography case which sliced and diced the First Amendment.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Oh? So in this instance the Constitution really doesn't matter? Thus the death of our great republic is upon us.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Paper,
> ...



Nothing prevents a heterosexual from going to a homosexual bar

Gesundheit always


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

^^^ Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. If God had intended for us to go with our own kind, reproduction would not take place between a man and woman only. Woman would not exist at all period if God had intended for us to go with our own kind.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> ^^^ Have you ever stopped to wonder why?
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> ...



God is not mentioned in the laws that protect the rights of the individual. We are a nation of THE LAW, not men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things. 

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Simply put you place this case under the Equal Protection clause. I sincerely believe both the 1st and 14th Amendments go hand in hand with one another.

But at any rate, this case I believe debunks the NM court's reasoning on the matter:

religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection

Quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981), 
in the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)

What I see here is similar to the Obamacare mandating the Catholic Church to pay for abortion. Both of these instances are burdening the religious convictions of faith based groups.

In the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless (5th Circuit). The court ruled that the free exercise of religion was "meritorious and prevailing" and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas from enforcing its ordinances that burdened his religious practices relating to the use of animals. 

So if that is the precedent, the Oregon Public Accommodation Law would be unfairly burdening the Christian couple as they would be obligated to do something that was against the teachings of their faith, they would be forced not to adhere to the doctrine their faith teaches about homosexuality.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> ^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly



I follow what Jesus taught, to be Christlike.
Great thing about being a Christian I never have to go around telling anyone that I am a Christian or what the Lord's way of doing things are.
They know it by my ACTIONS.
No one cares to know how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
Jesus accepted everyone and did not judge. I follow that path with my actions.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



No one is forcing them to enter into the private free enterprise market.

We open up a large can of worms if we allow everyone that falls back on their faith as their reason to judge one group of folks different than others based on what their religion is.


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...


 She should be. She has likely read the Letter of Jude, which is all of one chapter and precedes the Book of Revelations in the New Testament.

I've read the KJV, the Catholic version, the NIV, and the American Standard, plus 3 study bibles at home. They all say the same thing about this issue. The message is unequivocal.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.
> ...


Going the homosexual route is not Christ like.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.
> ...




1 Corinthians 15:58
Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



No, it is not, but put two gay men in the place of the adulteress brought to Christ to be stoned.  If they were brought to him do you really think Jesus would have cast the first stone rather than tell those around him, "Ye without sin cast the first stone", knowing full well none of them would?

I know you have the right answer to that.  Jesus would have done the same thing he did with the adulteress.  Once the crowd broke up he would have said, "go and sin no more".  

Immie


----------



## paperview (Sep 8, 2013)

_Believe in me or you'll sizzle like bacon._ - 2 Capitulations 17:22


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


I don't believe that the Lord would let them slide, especially if they are not sorry for being the way that they choose to be.

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> ^^^ I don't believe that the Lord would let them slide, especially if they are not sorry for being the way that they choose to be.
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly



Did he let the adulteress slide?  Was she repentant? 

What makes you think the two gay men would be any different?

How about you and I?  Has he let us slide?  Do we deserve any different treatment than the adulteress?   

Will he let this gay couple we have been discussing slide?  Does this couple deserve worse than you or I?   Personally, I do not expect any different treatment than they and I am hopeful he is as merciful as I have been led to believe to them as well as me.

Immie


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> _Believe in me or you'll sizzle like bacon._ - 2 Capitulations 17:22



You really are a troll aren't you?

The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.

Proverbs 15:2

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Proverbs 18:2


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ I don't believe that the Lord would let them slide, especially if they are not sorry for being the way that they choose to be.
> ...


People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets. 

God bless you always!!!

Holly


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar?



The heterosexual could file a complaint under the States Public Accommodation's law since the owner would be refusing service based on sexual orientation.  If of course the State has such a law (not all of them do).  If the state has no law, then the barkeep can do it.



JOSweetHeart said:


> Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?
> 
> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly



Never been to a bar that caters to homosexual have you?

"Homosexual bars" are called that because a lot of homosexuals may hang out there, it does not mean that the barkeep does not serve drinks to heterosexuals.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Just because YOU think your marital relationship only exists if the state says so doesn't mean other people feel that way.  Certainly, that lesbian couple didn't, since they asked for a WEDDING cake.

And the bakers' objection doesn't change just because you want to play dumbass, juvenile word-parsing games.  They didn't want to participate in a ceremony they had a religious disagreement with, and if you don't know that that objection doesn't change just because you slap a different label on the ceremony, then you're a bigger dumbass than I think you are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> If everyone had your attitude Immie there would be need for these kinds of laws.  But they are needed.



Why?  Because you NEED to be able to force people to associate with you even though they don't want to?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



Agreed but do you convince someone they are in jeopardy of eternal damnation by beating them over the head and screaming at them, "YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL". Is that what Jesus did?  Is that the way Christ came to you?

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> And the bottom line remains the same.  We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.
> 
> To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil.  And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.



I think the irony is going to be when these spoiled little whiners, stomping their feet in a pretense of "oppression", actually end up a change in the law to allow people MORE freedom from them and their self-absorbed demands, rather than less.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



'Tis true.  Does anyone really think that word of mouth isn't going to get around, and pretty soon everyone in town is going to know that Joe down at Joe's Diner is a racist piece of shit who doesn't like to serve black people, and they're going to start shunning the place on their own.  Maybe Joe gets enough business from other racists and people who just don't give a shit to stay in business, but probably not.  If he does, then fine.  At least they're all isolated in one spot, and no one's forced to have Joe as a co-worker someplace else.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> There goes Foxy bandying about the term "evil" for the 10th + time



Does it pinch a little?


----------



## Immanuel (Sep 8, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the bottom line remains the same.  We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.
> ...



From your fingertips to God's eyeballs, but I don't think the intolerant progressives who control this country will allow such a thing to happen.  Tolerance is something they demand from us but they will be damned if they give it.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



  I love it.  Citing the Constitution where it says that there can't BE any laws restricting free exercise of religion in order to defend the free exercise of religion against violating those self-same laws WHICH CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY EXIST is "ignorance and desperation.  

Only a liberal would consider believing the Constitution still has meaning to be "ignorant and desperate".

God, you're stupid.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law.  And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.
> ...



Oh, puhleeze.  They couldn't get a wedding cake at THAT bakery, and now they're being "starved out".  Wait, let me get my violin.  That much melodrama and pathos shouldn't go by without proper musical accompaniment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



In other words, it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS how someone else does or does not choose to interpret the will of God.  They are not required, in any way, shape, or form to consult YOU on what their beliefs are or should be, by ANY standard.

Under our Constitution, it IS, in fact, legally okay to "twist the word of God" - or anything else you please - to form your personal belief system.  It's YOURS.  That's what "personal" means.

Let me know if I'm still not making myself clear and you are still laboring under the delusion that your reading of the Bible has fuck-all to do with other people's beliefs or the law as it pertains to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?



Contemplate the difference between "their faith" and "what Noomi THINKS their faith is and should be".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> I would have thought that most Christians would be opposed to human cloning considering that it destroys a human embryo.



Well, that'll teach you to engage in activities for which you're unequipping (thinking, in other words).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



  Dear God, coming from you, that's the funniest thing I've heard today.

Did you just have a stroke, or what?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You can't be this dumb.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



In other words, you just got your ass spanked, and have no reply.  Dismissed.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Don't confuse them with facts while they're praying...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No, that title is yours, wiseguy.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Don't confuse Liberals with reality while they're whining.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You can't be this dumb.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Oh, shut the fuck UP already with your "Look how clever I am!" word-parsing.  You are right at the limit of my medications.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



Actually, Orthodox Jews most certainly DO close their stores on the Sabbath.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Paper,
> ...



Let me guess...fail you're GED?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all?   Would they sue or change the date?
> ...



Spoken like someone who knows shit about baking and confections.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Jews don't even drive their cars on the Sabbath.  If they have stores open, it's because they have non Jews working there.
> ...



You grew up in a small town with an Orthodox Jewish community?  Where was this?


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 8, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Most ironic, moronic post of the day!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Oh, good God.  Look, Betty Crocker.  You can't put a fancy, delicate baked product like a wedding cake in a FRIDGE, certainly not overnight, unless you WANT to serve your guests stale, crusty garbage.

Now that you've demonstrated to everyone that you know fuck-all about the baking aspect of this story, why don't you drop it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Not to mention that even if you COULD manage it, the taste of the resulting product would be such that the lesbians might as well have just mixed it up from a mix box they got at the dollar store.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Holy crap, NOW he thinks he's the fucking Cake Boss!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

paperview said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



In other words, they don't believe what YOU do, and they don't believe what you THINK they should if they're going to disagree with you.  Ergo, they can't REALLY be Christians, because YOU are the final arbiter on what ALL Christians do and don't believe.

Piss off.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Yeah, all those posts about this couple being pranked into doing cakes for cults, then the claim they called them abominations.. it's all a smear campaign.



That's because if leftists were ever honest about who they are and what they think, no one would ever listen to them again.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 8, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Did someone wave a Snausage over your nose?  No, I don't think so.  Sit, boy!  Stay!  Wait until someone addresses your stupid ass.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 8, 2013)

who pulled Cecilie1200's cord


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 8, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> who pulled Cecilie1200's cord



I think Cecille yanks his own cord.


----------



## Ropey (Sep 9, 2013)

Cecille's got them on their knees.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 9, 2013)

I'm pretty sure that Holly would feel comfortable at Westbro Baptist Church, if only they would change the name to something not quite so notorious..


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Have you ever stopped to wonder why?
> ...



Which explains why you like laws that usurp individual freedom.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.
> ...



You follow what Jesus taught? When did he teach that support the laws of Caesar is better than taking a stand against tyranny?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



If it is a private, free enterprise, market, why should they be kept out of it just because you hate Christians?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Yes, but the modern gay couple would sue him for not accepting them as they are, and win in court. As a Christian, I cannot watch them in sin and not warn them of the consequences, not should I be forced to accommodate their behavior simply because I own a business. 

That does not mean the state should be judging them as long as they are not harming anyone else. It just means I should have the freedom to believe what I want, just like they insist they want.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



What did Jesus do when people refused to repent? I can find plenty of examples of him insulting people, berating them, and even resorting to physical violence. Just a thought, perhaps you should think about the side of Jesus that took a scourge to make his point rather than telling others what Jesus wouldn't do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?
> ...



You are asking a lot there.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


No offense intended, but an apostate Muslim living in Australia is in no position to judge what should constitute Christian beliefs, or any mainstream variation thereon...

It was a silly comparison anyway...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The logic used by the couple in the bakery is irrelevant to Gadawg's post.

The legal logic is what is in question.

Person "A" states their religious conviction is that races shouldn't intermarry - therefore based on Person "A" conviction they discriminate based on race.

Person "B" states their religious conviction is that gender shouldn't marry the same gender - therefore based on Person "B" conviction they discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple.​

Now remembering that this is based on religious convitions and (a) not all religious convictions are based on the Bible, and (b) even then some may interpret the Bible differently from others - then please explain why Person "A's" should not receive the same exemption under the law as Person "B".

If both should, any person under the law can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, parental status, martial status, veteran's status, etc simply by claiming that it is their personal religious conviction.

If only Christians can discriminate against gays because of their religious convictions, but others with differing convictions cannot, then it's really not about upholding religious convictions.  It's asking for an exemption to only be able to discriminate against the "gheys".



>>>>


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 9, 2013)

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (_yet still operative_) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
> 
> I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.
> 
> ...




Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent.  Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?



>>>>


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 9, 2013)

God talked to me about this, and told me that he doesn't give a rat's ass about it one way or another.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
> 
> I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.
> 
> ...



Fine. Religious belief or conviction is no longer tolerable under the law. The only beliefs that are tolerable are ones sanctioned by the law. So be it. I get it now. The law does not allow a man to adhere to his faith for want of legality under the law. Funny, I thought it was the law that allowed a man to adhere to his faith. I guess I was wrong. We can tolerate homosexuals, but the rest of the world isn't obligated to tolerate us in return.

How invariably one sided.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
> ...



It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone.  If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that.  The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.  

He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business.  It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop.  He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.   

But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no.  He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




I'm sorry, but you are legally mistaken.  The location of the discrimination when the business model calls for on-site services makes no difference as the NM case points out.

A Plumber can no more refuse to unclog the Jewish persons toilet in their home, based on religion, then they can refuse to someone a toilet wax ring in their storefront.

The solution is not defining "special privileges" that people can claim on morality/convictions/faith, the solution is true freedom and the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses in general.



>>>>


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Again I am not arguing the law.  There are good laws, just laws, stupid laws, bad laws.  But for me, the law is not the issue in this case.

I am arguing a principle of unalienable rights that our Founders risked all their blood and treasure to defend.  I am arguing a principle of being allowed our beliefs and convictions that require no contribution or participation by any other.

If the baker broke an existing law, I have no problem with the proper authorities enforcing the consequences of the law.  If it is bad law, I have no problem with people petitioning their government to change the law and, if I agree with them, I would cheerfully join in that process.

But for me, unalienable rights trump all other considerations.  For people to take upon themselves the moral authority to punish and destroy the baker for holding a conviction the mob does not share is wrong.  It is hateful.  It is evil.  And it should be condoned by nobody.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> who pulled Cecilie1200's cord



Awww, wuzz oo get oo feewings hurt?

GOOD!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > who pulled Cecilie1200's cord
> ...



His?  You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit?  Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 9, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets.
> ...


No that is not how the Lord came to me, but for some people in this world sadly, what needs to be said can not be sugar coated. It needs to be said flat out.



Alfalfa said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


I never had to take one because I graduated with the rest of my class back in 2000.   

By the way, you messed up what you say to me here. Its "You failed *your* GED?"   



Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...


Amen to what you say here, QW. If I were on a road that only led to a dead end and drove past people who knew it, I would very much appreciate it if they had given me the heads up that anyone in my position would like to have had.

God bless you three always!!!   

Holly


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Well, you post like a dude...and yes, there are men named Cecil.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



Is anyone else almighty tired of this make-believe pacifist Jesus the lefty dribblers have invented over the last few decades to try to co-opt Christianity for their own bullshit?


----------



## bodecea (Sep 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Not all Christians agree with you AND with the Loving v. Virginia case, Christianity and the bible was used to argue for keeping the different races from legally marrying.   50 years from now, what do you think your christianity's position will be on gay marriage?


----------



## paperview (Sep 9, 2013)

bodecea said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


I don't know how people can so consistently miss this point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
> Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
> But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.



Why is a can of worms for individuals to not be ordered around by the government?

Seriously, given your repeated assertions that you support individual freedom, a small government, and your constant complaints about other people wanting to shove their beliefs down your throat, why do you insist that the government have the ability to force people to do what you want? 

I only see one answer to that question, and it ain't a pretty one.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No pastor should be required to marry anybody to anybody.  Whether it is a case of divorcees wishing to marry or mixed races wishing to marry or same sex couples wishing to marry or what he suspects is a bigamous situation or if he just thinks the couple is too young and immature, it should be his unalienable right to choose what he will or will not participate in.

This is the principle that should apply in all these cases.  Where the vendor or serviceman or store owner or whatever is not required to participate, then certainly non discrimination laws should apply.  But when a person is required to participate in something with which he has moral convictions against, that is just wrong.  And it violates  unalienable rights.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 9, 2013)

I would have jerked off in the cake batter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I repeat my question, why the fuck should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it? 

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

paperview said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I don't know how you can so consistently not have an argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
> ...



Unlike you, I don't see anything logical about forcing people to do things against their principles. It is slavery, and is always bad. Any attempt to argue that it is good if the results produce a positive social benefit is fundamentally contradictory to the principles that founded this country. 

And that, ultimately, is the issue.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> God talked to me about this, and told me that he doesn't give a rat's ass about it one way or another.



Good for you, you can now stop pretending you care.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Which is why the law sucks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Posts like a dude? Do you think women have to ask permission before they can say something? Should they never argue with a man?

And you call me a bigot. If being a bigot means disagreeing with your pronouncements on the proper place of women, I am a bigot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

paperview said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Could it be because it never happened?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yes, I keep saying this, but nobody seems to see it. They who require tolerance are intolerant. Those who despise bigotry are bigoted. Those who desire justice are unjust. Those who desire equality dole out inequality. It's quite easy to see.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.
> ...



Support their choice to do so?  No.  Support their right to make that choice?  Yes.  The essence of the First Amendment has always been, "I disagree with what you say (or do), but I defend to the death your right to say it (or do it)."


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Amen an amen.  It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason.  Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Warrior102 said:


> I would have jerked off in the cake batter.



I've heard from gay friends that there are guys who claim to be straight who like getting bjs from gays.  Food for thought.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

And you think this is a persuasive argument?  Heheh...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




So could you clarify your position regarding the Oregon Bakery:

1.  Two woman come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be picked up at the shop.  The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2.  Two woman come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall.  The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​
The shop owner objects to same gender weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not?  Is that correct?

******************************************

Using a similar scenario to the Oregon Bakery:

1.  A black woman and white man come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be picked up at the shop.  The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2.  A black woman and white man come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall.  The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​
The shop owner objects to interracial weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not?  Is that correct?


****************************

Trying to mince whether a business transaction takes place in the person's shop or at a client location just doesn't make any logical sense.  In BOTH scenario's the location of the delivery of services is irrelevant to the fundamental violation of the law.  The law encroaches on the private property rights of the owner in BOTH scenario's and trying to justify discrimination based on the fact that in one case a cake is picked up in the store and in another it's delivered to a reception hall (which BTW is not taking part in the ceremony) seems like a stretch.



>>>>


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Sorry to burst your bubble but in all 3 scenarios you put forth the service providers would be legally protected in not serving those customers since political positions are not protected classes.

This is said over and over and over and over but the xtian bigots and haters who want their pervasive form of bible based bigotry enshrined in law don't listen because these kinds of arguments, that are immaterial to the issue at hand, are all they have.

Pathetic and sad.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
> ...



You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why do you keep defending laws you say you do not agree with? Is it because you really don't understand that it is acceptable to challenge them on the basis of personal principle, even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with you? Grow some balls and argue what you say your position is, or shut up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So what is the argument you're making?  "This should be the law, because it's the law"?  You're talking about what the law IS, as though that settles some question about what the law SHOULD BE, which is what Foxfyre appears to be discussing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Want to explain why someone who is a member of PETA would be able to argue that not bringing flowers to a convention of butchers is OK because cutting up meat is a political position?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



How many times did you actually flunk reading in school?  My name isn't Cecil, halfwit.  It's CECILIE.  Get some glasses, or a seeing-eye dog, or something.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I'm sorry, is that french?


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?

Weird.  Xtians were against all those as well and used the bible to defend their positions.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Because butchers are not a protected class.

how many times must this be said before it penetrates that thick bible cranium god gave you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



There you go again. Your only defense when someone pins you down is to accuse other people of having your viewpoint, and then attacking it.

I oppose all laws that impose a duty on private individuals to associate with anyone, even if I think they make sense. That is a principle because I don't want the government that can tell people that they have to do something simply because the majority thinks it is a good idea. Somehow, this warps inside your head to me supporting majority rule over freedom.

I oppose all government definition of marraige. The only reason the government regulates marraige is to tell people who they can associate with, and in what way. This means that I have no problem if 250 consenting adults want to gt together and call it a marraige. It is not the government's business, mine, or yours, how they conduct themselves as long as they are not forcing their views on another person.

You, on the other hand, would require them to get government approval, and then force anyone who disagreed with you to obey because it is the law.

I haven't run from anything. My position has always been consistently against the government being allowed to control people, which is why you cannot fathom it. You cannot imagine a world where the government does not tell you what to think, it scares you.

It doesn't scare me.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

bendog said:


> Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie
> 
> jus sayin



CECILIE
GENDER: *Feminine*
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks.  Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl.  His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



The law says that anyone that has a business has to take any customer that walks through their door. This explains why a PETA freak can walk into a restaurant and demand to be served, and the restaurant cannot refuse them service. If that PETA florists hanldes a convention, it has to handle all of them despite your idiotic belief that human rights are based on classes.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> And you think this is a persuasive argument?  Heheh...



When you stick to prevaricated opinions like you do, nothing will ever persuade you. Given that I am a "Fundie" I can change my views on a dime if I think they are superior to the ones I held previously. I can, however, accuse you of being closed minded.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie
> ...



You, Paper, and RKM all have been systematically dismantled, and the result is this, making fun of people's names. Funny, I thought we were the bigots? How childish you are.


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie
> ...



I have no dog in the fight, but confusion seems understandable.


----------



## paperview (Sep 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...


lol.  Systematically dismantled.  Only in your head.  

Reading your posts elicits the Holy Grail torso.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I'm not.

I'm showing the hypocrisy of saying that private business should be able to refuse gay customers because they have moral objections to homosexuals and then those same people say that it's OK for big government to require private businesses to not discriminate on other factors (race, religion, gender, age, etc.).

To say "my group should be able to discriminate against he gays because that is our our conviction", but agree that the government has the power to force other people to violate their convictions when it is a different group is a hypocritical position as it is using big government to force other people to violate their convictions.

The solution isn't carving out "special privileges" for people of faith to justify discrimination against gays, the solution is to return the decision to private business for any reason.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Is it because you really don't understand that it is acceptable to challenge them on the basis of personal principle, even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with you?



#1 - I don't have a problem with someone challenging my position.  I deal with them in a respectful and considerate manner.  Unlike you.

#2 - I don't have an issue with private business discriminating based on whatever criteria they wish to choose.  As the Oregon Bakery case shows, if the public doesn't like it, they will take their business elsewhere.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Grow some balls and argue what you say your position is, or shut up.




I've stated my position very clearly, sorry you don't understand it.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




I discuss the topic with the recognition that I have an opinion of what the law (or lack of actually) should be, but that does not preclude a discussion of reality and what the current status of the law is.


>>>>


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 9, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I agree with most of what you say,
but wouldn't call this evil. It is selfish and human
as most people are. People are hurt and express this
by hurting others back. Not trying to be evil, just seeking justice
in ways that end up hurting both sides until we learn better ways.

Thanks, this is the best explanation of your view so far and I think this should be clear!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You extol the law, but you do not extol the rights the first laws of this country gave to the people, namely the U.S. Constitution, which I can discern has no bearing on your opinion of the law.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

paperview said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Given that for the past dozen of your responses to me, you have done nothing but insult me instead of argue or debate... I think that conjures up images of that flower in your avatar being not a rose but a stem of thorns.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




They can be Christians, but their application of Christianity is a bit screwed up.  You can't claim you are adhering to your faith when you pick and choose what you will obey.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Why not?  Since when are Christians without sin?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Sep 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Your position, special privileges for any moral/religious/faith position should be added and everyone else is on their own, but when asked if someone could then discriminate against blacks your dodged and said discrimination against blacks wasn't in the Bible, since it wasn't in the Bible (in your opinion) then it wouldn't count event that it might be the moral/religious/faith position of another person.  That results in the government then having to pick and choose which moral/religious/faith positions are valid or invalid.

My position, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as a class of laws that apply to private business in recognition of the property rights of the private business owner.  If repealed the moral/religious/faith question becomes irrelevant because private business can exercise their property rights as they see fit in terms of which customers to choose to which to sell goods or services.  



Your position appears to be targeted to allow only discrimination against the gays, but it's OK for big government to protect other groups.  I want is smaller less intrusive government for everyone.  It protects ALL religious/moral/faith views - like them or not - instead of just creating laws for open season on gays.  Now which is the more Constitutional?


>>>>


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > This thread seems to have proven that perpetual motion, of a sorts, is, in fact possible! I like to check in every couple of days to see where it has headed. Now, I see that the baker who lost his customers and went out of business, is equivenelent to "It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. ". Now, under some circumstances, I would be forced by my couriosity to research this twisted path of logic, but, I would rather just let my imagination be my guide as to how this consclusion was reached! I'll be back in a couple of days, and I am sure that somehow or another, Hitler, JFK's assasination , and global warming will somehow be tied into this issue....
> ...



No, they will be offered jobs at Faux News.


----------



## NLT (Sep 9, 2013)

Warrior102 said:


> I would have jerked off in the cake batter.



Repeat customer! Did Plasma Balls order another cake?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2013)

Here's you cake... enjoy the frosting.  Nudge.

I make it a point to never piss off someone that is making my food.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



We are all sinful, but a true Christian recognizes when they have sinned (because he/she is convicted) and asks for forgiveness.  They don't brag about not committing one specific sin while committing a different sin.  

Claiming to discriminate someone covertly as opposed to overtly because you don't approve of their lifestyle goes against Christian principles.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Here's you cake... enjoy the frosting.  Nudge.
> 
> I make it a point to never piss off someone that is making my food.



That's a good policy and one that I follow _religiously_.


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Romans 12:17-21
American Standard Version (ASV)

17 Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men.

18 If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men.

19 Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.

20 But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



What about the ones you do in the dark backroom of your bakery?

If someone doesn't taste the semen, did they ejaculate?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

bendog said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Bendog, I have no doubt you are a good christian (like my mother).  Others, most others, I can't vouch for.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

bendog said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That Scripture was meant for Christians.  Not everyone in the United States is a Christian, and a Christian will not force those that are not Christian to follow the rules of Christianity.

Jesus didn't preach for Christians to force their beliefs on anyone.  We live in a country that is inhabited by people of many religions/faiths.  Why Jefferson believed in the separation of church and state.

The law in Oregon doesn't go by the Bible.  They have a law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against citizens based on sexual preference.  It's not hard to understand.
If you want to own a business in Oregon, you either try to change the law or obey the law, don't expect exemptions based on "faith".


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Well apparently when it comes to treatment of gays in the public market place, Christians are without sin cause god told them to.


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

I am hardly good.  But, in all honesty, I think the bakers were judgmental, and that's sinful.  They should have baked the cake, and delivered, and if they truly felt compelled, told the couple they couldn't agree with their marriage or sexual mores, but nonetheless wished them God's peace.

I really don't think the boycott was "right."  But then not all people call themselves christians.  The bakers essentially boycotted the wedding.  Tit for tat, imo.  Not really ok in christianity.  I'd have been more comfortable, and frankly think it'd have been more effective, for the GLBT community to expose the bakers behavior, and say it was petty, judgmental, hurtful, but they pray/hope/whatever the bakers' hearts are softened.

Templer neg repping people cause they don't agree with his concept of christian ... pfft.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Some Christians may feel that God approves of their behavior, (hating all gays) but if they read the Bible and followed Jesus' teachings (love thy neighbor as thyself), they would know better.  I believe some here use "faith" as a cover for their own bigotry.


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Ah, but my pt was the bakers didn't behave like christians, imo.  It's true they were repayed in kind, and perhaps that was wrong, but as you say, not all are christians.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



For Christians, it's not about being found out by "someone" - God sees everything and they know it.


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I used to work out at this YMCA.  There was a huge lockerroom.  Bunch of guys, butt neked.  No privacy.  They had this old style giant tv ... 60 inches with a vaccum tube the size of a small european country.  Pat Robertson was on there one morning saying "And I can see Peter and John ....."  Creeped me out so bad, I changed gyms.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I don't think they do.  Why would they  comment about privately jizzing on someones wedding cake?


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



I think only Warrior went there, and I doubt he professes to aspire to christianity.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

bendog said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



They sure didn't.  They think they did, because they believe that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, but God didn't give them (the bakers) permission to be the enforcers of his law, just the doers.  And if boycotting the bakery is a sin, then those who participated will have to answer to God.  Not all actions of a boycott are sinful, I don't believe purposely not utilizing their services, is a sin.  However, threats and keeping those who may have wanted to use the baker's services from being able to so, is a different matter.

My point is that this is about a State Law, and if anyone wants to own a business in that state, they need to make themselves aware of the laws and how they apply and decide beforehand if they will comply.  

*Good Christians are about obeying the law.*


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



A true Christian does know it.   Some Christians are just not aware of their reckless words and how Scripture also says that they will have to account for each one.  

If they truly meant that they would do such a thing, they either don't understand Christianity or are not really Christian.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 9, 2013)

I forgive each and every one of them...but I will still kick their online ass when they post bullshit.


----------



## bendog (Sep 9, 2013)

Well, imo a GLBT christian could find the bakers' judgmental actions so hurtful that he/she wouldn't want their services, even if offered.  Turning a cheek is one thing, asking to be hit is another.  

I dunno though that christians don't sometimes violate the law.  Certainly during the vietnam war, and civil rights movement, they did.  Passive resistance did violate the law.  Some anti-abortion folks are non-violent, as well.  Though I find their support of finding the money and care for every baby to be unpersuasive.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> I forgive each and every one of them...but I will still kick their online ass when they post bullshit.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 9, 2013)

bendog said:


> Well, imo a GLBT christian could find the bakers' judgmental actions so hurtful that he/she *wouldn't want their services,* even if offered.  Turning a cheek is one thing, asking to be hit is another.


That's probably the route I would have taken.  However, the LGBTs were exercising their right by suing them, since they probably knew the law prohibited it. 



> I dunno though that christians don't sometimes violate the law.  Certainly during the vietnam war, and civil rights movement, they did.  Passive resistance did violate the law.  Some anti-abortion folks are non-violent, as well.  Though I find their support of finding the money and care for every baby to be unpersuasive.



I'm sure we do all the time (God's laws), and many times our state laws too, but when you are caught, you own up to it.

I think many times there is confusion as to what God expects from us when we are trying to do what we think He wants us to do.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Everyone knows my position as I am open about it so what is there to pin me down about?
I am a Libertarian that supports 100% what my party says:
"We applaud the US Supreme Court decision to strike down the DOMA, a federal law that discriminates against non heterosexual marriages."
That is what defines my opinion and beliefs. Is that pinning it down? I am a LIBERTARIAN.
We stand for this in the Libertarian Party and it is clearly front page on our national web site: "The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971".
So which is with you? Are you a Libertarian or are you not?
"This is a landmark decision for personal freedom" Geoff Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Do you believe the repeal of DOMA by the SCOTUS was a landmark decision for personal freedom? 
Libertarians ARE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Are you for marriage equality? 
For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons I am normally opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action. However, to stretch that into if a business chooses to discriminate at will the typical libertarian says that is a business's right to do so is not true.
Barry Goldwater in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act spoke on this, made reference in his speech on the final vote of this very subject, Milton Friedman made comparisons to the Hitler Nuremberg Laws when the Fair Employment Practices Act passed. 
The fiercest opponent of public accommodation legislation was William F. Buckley, Jr. 
He publicly changed his mind in 2004 and stated he was wrong and government intervention was needed. If a business is open to the public and is incorporated the rules are different than a private club.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


That reminds me I need to find something I disagree with regarding the libertarian party platform.  I don't like 100% it can't be true


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> I'm not.



You do.



WorldWatcher said:


> I'm showing the hypocrisy of saying that private business should be able to refuse gay customers because they have moral objections to homosexuals and then those same people say that it's OK for big government to require private businesses to not discriminate on other factors (race, religion, gender, age, etc.).



How is it hypocritical? Must a person not want to serve blacks if they serve gays? What if the person who wants to deny service to gays is black, should they also deny service to themselves simply because you cannot fathom that sexual preference is different than skin color?



WorldWatcher said:


> To say "my group should be able to discriminate against he gays because that is our our conviction", but agree that the government has the power to force other people to violate their convictions when it is a different group is a hypocritical position as it is using big government to force other people to violate their convictions.



That would be a good argument, but the person you were responding to was agreeing with me, and I never said that. In fact, the specific post you responded to stated that PETA members should be able to deny services to people that eat meat based on their personal beliefs.

Doesn't that indicate that you are making up arguments for the other person, and attacking them based on what you made up? Isn't there a word for that?



WorldWatcher said:


> The solution isn't carving out "special privileges" for people of faith to justify discrimination against gays, the solution is to return the decision to private business for any reason.



Yet you keep arguing that the laws exist, and that we have to obey them.



WorldWatcher said:


> #1 - I don't have a problem with someone challenging my position.  I deal with them in a respectful and considerate manner.  Unlike you.
> 
> #2 - I don't have an issue with private business discriminating based on whatever criteria they wish to choose.  As the Oregon Bakery case shows, if the public doesn't like it, they will take their business elsewhere.



Funny, I never said you did. What I said is that you don't defend the position you claim you have. You continually go out of your way to explain what the law is, and that you disagree with it, but never actually explain why. 

You do not take, or defend, a position, you just post, and claim the high ground because you think being polite trumps the fact that the law is wrong, or something.



WorldWatcher said:


> I've stated my position very clearly, sorry you don't understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>



I understand what you say your position is, what I don't understand is why you don't understand that not defending it is the same as ceding it to the other side. Then you actually go out and build a nice fort  for them to shoot at you when you stick your head up. Stop waving the truce flag and defend the position you claim to have, or admit you don't really believe what you say you do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Hurting people is not justice, even if they hurt you first.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Define "hurt."  Apparently picketing a picketer harms the picketer.  Just ask Foxy, she's convinced.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You are 100% right, everyone knows you position. Most people don't care when you post something that totally contradicts your support of government imposing a belief system on others, but I find it offensive. I don't like wannabe tyrants that dress themselves up as freedom fighters. Anyone, including Buckley, that supports public accommodation laws supports tyranny.

Unlike you, I am not a Libertarian, I reuse to be a member of any group that exist only to define others.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Dare I list off the things I disagree with on both platforms? Does this site's server have enough bandwidth to post it?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Essentially, two wrongs never make a right. But in this case, I don't think the couple was wrong to begin with. The wrong is gay rights groups scaring their vendors off and intentionally trying to harm their business, which they succeeded in doing.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 9, 2013)

HI TK
A. RE:Constitutional law and religious freedom in business
I think the conflict here (as with the health care bill issues) is
spirit of the law
v.
letter of the law
By the spirit of the law, of course, I agree totally that laws should not be interpreted
so as to violate the spirit of the Constitutional laws and amendments
By the letter of the law, when conflicts occur, they need to go through the given due process to resolve

I found from experience this becomes inherently "unfair" to the violated party which has to bear the burden of proving they were violated AFTER or DURING the violation

to be PERFECTLY fair and inclusive, no such violation should happen at all.
In case of conflict it should be resolved to PREVENT violating rights of one side or the other 

So I happen to AGREE with you the system is a flawed

As with the health care bill, which has lots of unconstitutional issues with it, 
it is still considered passed/law "until proven otherwise"; so for those whose religious freedom it violates, these parties are disenfranchised of "inalienable rights"
until "due process" is finished of petitioning back and forth to defend these rights!

Problem is people are not AGREEING on teh SPIRIT of the laws to PREVENT
infractions in teh first place.

If you bypass the spirit, and just play with the "letter of the law" to justify X Y Z
then you risk violating rights "until proven and corrected"

So you are both right, in a sense.
By the letter of the law, you can justify this or anything.
By the spirit of teh law, NO it is NOT truly lawful to impose a bias
which abridges or imposes on the religious beliefs this way.

The solution is to CORRECT and RESOLVE the conflict so NO SUCH imposition occurs.

Had all the issues surrounding the gay marriage changes been addressed IN ADVANCE
we would NOT have these problems. So that is the fallout from passing laws
without the consent of all people affected.  Playing with the letter of the law,
missing the spirit of the law, and then suffering the consequences of unresolved issues.

Same with the health care bill.
Passed without consent of all the people affected.
And then can you wonder that issues have come up regarding
conflicts with religious freedom and contraception or prochoice/prolife,
not to mention spiritual healing which hasn't been fully addressed yet....

B. On a shorter note TK
I take exception to your signature that threatens to neg "liberals" for negative posts?
As long as people take responsibility for working out their issues, what is wrong with posting whatever? People are human, and while learning how to talk fairly with opposing views, OF COURSE their message will come out negative.  You have to start somewhere.

It takes PRACTICE to be able to argue or defend without emotions attached.

I would no more fault people for that, than fault babies for crying in frustration,
or teens reacting to parents, etc. 

Why not WELCOME people to dialogue with you?

The only thing I can't stand is "hit and run" 
posting negative things without sticking around to resolve questions that
come up and actually discussing point by point where all those emotions came from.

TK I wouldn't want you to come across as just slamming ppl down for oppositional views
when it is CLEAR to me you can just as well draw them out to express objections
SPECIFICALLY to the point any conflicts can be worked out.

So I'd more encourage that. Given what you have to offer, I'd rather you engage
not discourage people from voicing to you whatever objections or issues they may have.

Thanks and I hope it gets better.



TemplarKormac said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



BTW by the same freedoms under the Constitution, technically both people have equal rights to their interpretation of equal protections of the law and religious freedom; and neither side has more right to impose their interpretation on the opposing view.

However, this is not what our govt practices. Because both sides in conflicts are not protected equally, either Congress or Courts can legalize one view or the other.

I do have a problem with this as a Constitutionalist.

For religious issues such as gay marriage and the health care bill, etc.
I believe if people disagree by religious and/or political beliefs, it is not constitutional
to pass and enforce a bill that violates one person/group's beliefs or the other
by imposing this way. ALL conflicts related to religious issues should be resolved in advance so that the State/Govt is NOT imposing a bias by majority rule.  If conflicts
cannot be resolved, the parties should separate funding/policy, such as per party
and leave dissenters out of it.

This trend of abusing political parties to get majority-rule to bulldoze over the
minority opposition violates the spirit of Constitutional laws on religious freedom,
equal protection of laws without dsicrimination and due process.

It's just not being enforced because ppl are competing to abuse political parties
and majority rule for their agenda. So it is justified, again, by the "letter of the law"

This is why I would insist on conflict resolution and mediation by consensus,
so all parties to the conflict work out an agreement where they both believe
the letter and the spirit of the law are both met without compromising either.

I am SICK of hearing these arguments where one person is right by the spirit
of the law, and the other by the letter. We should have agreement on both levels!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



LOL!
All you ever do is define others here.
Your milk is so weak you can never define yourself.
But is obvious you are a homophobe.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but race and ethnicity are only "special" cases in which it's okay for the government to violate the First Amendment in YOUR diseased little "Ohmigod, I CAN'T type out the whole word!" brain.  What's the problem there, Sparkles?  Too many letters for your tiny brain to wrap around, or does X mark the spot where most of your IQ points disappeared to?

Truth is, The First Amendment protects ANY exercise of religious beliefs that does not actually cause harm (ie, I can't conduct any Druidic human sacrifices).  Doesn't matter if other people find it stupid, obnoxious, or insulting.  DEFINITELY doesn't matter if YOU approve of it or not.  I don't recall that the First Amendment contains any clauses about "Unless ignorant shitheads on the Internet deem it to be bigoted".

I'm very sorry to hear that you are so pathetic and sad that a free society scares you this badly.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



Not that it matters, but it's the Dutch version of Cecilia.

And by the way, twerp, what the hell is "posting like a dude"?  What the hell kind of sexist remark is THAT?  What is it with you leftists that you're so damned prejudiced against EVERYONE that you are incapable of seeing people as individuals instead of groups?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Ended?  ENDED?!  The government CREATED those things, you dingbat.  Are we supposed to APPLAUD their fantastic moral leadership for belatedly catching up with everyone else and ending the evils they imposed on society in the first place?

And no, the CHRISTIANS were not "opposed to those".  I have no idea where you got the "idea" - if it can even be called that - that "Christians" is some precise, homogenous designation that locks everyone who fits under it into one narrow set of beliefs as perceived by YOU.  On the other hand, you apparently don't even know how to spell the word, so I don't really expect you to have enough brain cells to know what it means.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



How many times must THIS be said before it penetrates that vast, echoing emptiness between your ears:  only bigots set up "protected classes", ie. groups of people who are "more equal" than others.  Your precious, venerated "protected classes" are the number-one, glaring sign that you're a hate-filled, ignorant, intolerant, tyrannical bundle of the exact prejudice you claim to oppose.

Congratulations, dumbass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie
> ...



Oh, yes, because you found one tiny blurb on a website, I OBVIOUSLY am the one who doesn't know the origin of my name.  God forbid that you ever consider that maybe the website's info isn't complete.  

No, I'm not planning to bother discussing this further with a giant, spreading cumstain who just figured out how to READ my name, and that it isn't a man's.  Run the fuck along, Junior, because you're already only two seconds away from being ignored for maxing out my Bigot Meter.  You don't need to be wasting your precious "Noticed as though I'm almost human" time with this bullshit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Oh, even better.  They were systematically dismantled by a WOMAN, so what do they do?  Start attacking my femininity like the true champions of tolerance that leftists always are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

bendog said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



It does?  Why?  My name is Cecilie, a female name, which seems perfectly understandable, since I'm a female.  It's only confusing if you're a two-brain-celled twit who thinks anyone who expresses an opinion aggressively and trounces him in a debate instead of simpering MUST be male.  An intelligent human being who isn't hampered by bigotry would simply have looked at my name and avatar and figured it out in a nano-second . . . as, in fact, virtually every CONSERVATIVE on this board did a long time ago.

FYI, your website is inaccurate.  Cecilie is a form of Cecilia that is used in The Netherlands as well as its neighboring countries.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Sorry, Sparkles, but what do you think belief IS, if not picking and choosing what you think is right?

If there's only one true way to interpret and follow the Bible, that's going to be a mighty big frigging shock to the numerous Christian denominations that have been arguing that very point for the many centuries of their existence.  

Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you could tell us WHICH reading of the Bible is actually the "real" one?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

bendog said:


> I am hardly good.  But, in all honesty, I think the bakers were judgmental, and that's sinful.  They should have baked the cake, and delivered, and if they truly felt compelled, told the couple they couldn't agree with their marriage or sexual mores, but nonetheless wished them God's peace.
> 
> I really don't think the boycott was "right."  But then not all people call themselves christians.  The bakers essentially boycotted the wedding.  Tit for tat, imo.  Not really ok in christianity.  I'd have been more comfortable, and frankly think it'd have been more effective, for the GLBT community to expose the bakers behavior, and say it was petty, judgmental, hurtful, but they pray/hope/whatever the bakers' hearts are softened.
> 
> Templer neg repping people cause they don't agree with his concept of christian ... pfft.



In all honesty, no one frigging asked you, nor is it relevant to anything now that you've burdened us with your unsolicited judgementalism.

The issue here isn't what the "true" reading of the Bible is.  The issue is Constitutional rights, which includes the Constitutional right to be wrong by the utterly subjective opinions of other people who weren't consulted, anyway.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 9, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> I forgive each and every one of them...but I will still kick their online ass when they post bullshit.



 Yes, FEAR your awesome power to hurl third-grade insults.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 9, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Remember when you made thoughtful and reasonable posts before you went crazy obsessing over me?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 10, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



So are you good with all discrimination in the public market? 

Do you honestly believe the bakers had a problem getting bake goods? Proof?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 10, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Religious beliefs demanded government create laws to ban those things.
Same as the gay boogeyman issue.
Christians never supported bans on interracial marriage, women voting, drinking alcohol and integration?
What planet do you live on?
You are not very swift.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No. But I will not allow for this kind of religious oppression either. Because what it boils down to is that a religious couple were not to protect their beliefs and avoid committing a taboo among their religion, hence religious oppression light. 

Do you honestly believe you can make a Christian sin against his own faith? On purpose, with him knowing and refusing?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Alfalfa said:
> ...



There are idiots all over the world that use religion as an excuse to hurt other people. There are even people that claim to be Buddhists that do this. The only people that don't understand this are religious bigots who believe they are divinely inspired to wipe out other religions.

Is that why you want the government to create laws to ban religions other than yours?


----------



## bendog (Sep 10, 2013)

Despite TP's attempts to distort the story for his own purposes, no one forced the bakers to cater a GLBT wedding.  They were/are free to cater the weddings of anyone who goes to their church, or anyone who requests their services.  They just can't be officially in biz.  Ironically, St. Paul counseled the Hellenic churches to keep their economic dealings amonst themselves.  Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

bendog said:


> Despite TP's attempts to distort the story for his own purposes, no one forced the bakers to cater a GLBT wedding.  They were/are free to cater the weddings of anyone who goes to their church, or anyone who requests their services.  They just can't be officially in biz.  Ironically, St. Paul counseled the Hellenic churches to keep their economic dealings amonst themselves.  Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's.



Ironically, he did no such thing.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 10, 2013)

Why don't just go..............

Not today.


----------



## bendog (Sep 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Despite TP's attempts to distort the story for his own purposes, no one forced the bakers to cater a GLBT wedding.  They were/are free to cater the weddings of anyone who goes to their church, or anyone who requests their services.  They just can't be officially in biz.  Ironically, St. Paul counseled the Hellenic churches to keep their economic dealings amonst themselves.  Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's.
> ...



oh yeah, he did.  And neg repped others for differing religious beliefs.  But that's really neither here nor there.  Rather, the bakers remain free to bake within their circle of people who view christian tenets about homosexuality as they do.  Perhaps making less money, but not necessarilty.  Moreover, their refusal to cater the lesbian couple's wedding was a hurtful thing, and intentional, which they could have avoided by simply catering the wedding, and then ceasing to publically offer services, but the boycott by the GLBT community was no less hurtful.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Sep 10, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



"religious oppression"???????????

What a whiny crock that is.

They simply chose not to serve particular customers. 

That's their choice and I have no problem with that.

Now they get to live with the consequences of that decision. 

There is no religious oppression in their choice to be close minded bigots.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> I do have a problem with this as a Constitutionalist.
> 
> For religious issues such as gay marriage and the health care bill, etc.
> *I believe if people disagree by religious and/or political beliefs, it is not constitutional
> ...



I would like to know which religion has a religious belief that opposes treating every human being fairly?  What belief is the law in Oregon violating when it says that you have to treat everyone the same?

The problem with those that are complaining here that the bakers were mistreated or that the law is unfair to them is that they are somehow applying "their belief that it is a sin to be homosexual" to people that don't have the same belief and may not even be religious.

It's not like homosexuals are forcing the bakers to become homosexuals, or forcing them to sanction their relationship, they just want them to bake them a damn cake, which is what they are in business for.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Saul Alinsky must be proud of people like you. There is religious oppression in the way liberals like you shame other people of faith for standing up for what they believe in. 

This whole thing about liberals being "tolerant", "equal" and "just" is more of a crock than anything else. When you accept the religious man as much as gay one, you will be deserving of such titles, not before.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Saul Alinsky must be proud of people like you. There is religious oppression in the way liberals like you shame other people of faith for standing up for what they believe in.


Standing up for bigotry?  That's not even Christian.



> This whole thing about liberals being "tolerant", "equal" and "just" is more of a crock than anything else. When you accept the religious man as much as gay one, you will be deserving of such titles, not before.



I find that Liberals are more tolerant, equal and just than most of the right-wing extremists who try to use religion as a cover for their bigotry.

What religious belief is the Oregon state law violating when it tells business owners they have to treat every customer the same?

There is no religious belief being violated.  The bakers were being bigots, they got what they deserved.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 10, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


First I don't agree with the convoluted logic that producing or selling a product is the same as participating in the use of the product. 

Yes I do think you can make a Christian sin.  Clearly from this thread that is a task that is all to easy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

bendog said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



I know you live in a different universe, but they did not have the Internet in this one when Paul was alive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

Mertex said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Saul Alinsky must be proud of people like you. There is religious oppression in the way liberals like you shame other people of faith for standing up for what they believe in.
> ...



I have noticed that bigots always think other bigots are fair.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



As usual you run from the subject with what you falsely claim other people believe instead of telling us what you believe.
I specifically posted examples of how Christians in this country supported slavery, bans on interracial marriage, bans on women voting, bans on alcohol and supported segregation.
And as usual you run from those facts because you will not admit they ever happened.
This is not about religion.
This is about people like yourself hating gays and using "religious beliefs" as your excuse.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Indeed there are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 10, 2013)

Mertex said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > I do have a problem with this as a Constitutionalist.
> ...



Oh, dear God, NOW we're going to define "religion" as "touchy-feely, fuzzy-wuzzy liberal idealism", and everything else is just fake, and thus not deserving of legal protection.  It'd be brilliant . . . if it wasn't so piss-stupidly juvenile it makes my stomach hurt.

Why don't you tell me which religion IS about "treating people fairly", whatever the fuck THAT means?  Because I don't actually know ANY religion for which that is the central, operative purpose.  

This reminds me of one of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes:

_According to liberals, the message of Jesus is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive").

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd.

In fact, Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. That is the reason He is called "Christ the Redeemer" rather than "Christ the Moron Driving Around in a Volvo With a 'Be Nice to People' Bumper Sticker on It."_


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Had you any type of deductive reasoning skills, you would understand that it wasn't the making of the product, it was the delivering, the enabling, the being part of the environment surrounding it which drove the couple to deny service. You have no idea what went through their minds when they did deny them service, since you aren't a Christian. You can't assume to know, yet you feel like you have the right to judge them with impunity. Despite your attempt to change the subject, I ask forgiveness for my sins all the time, but obligating someone to sin against their will is a different matter altogether. So thick headed you are.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 10, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I'm a christian.  Have proclaimed so many times. How can you forget this from one day to the next?

I know what went through their minds, they proclaimed it loudly. Are you deaf that you can not hear?  Are you so blind you can not see? 

Delivering, enabling what a load of horse poo.  Delivery of goods is a part of the sale.  Enabling?  WTF are you talking about?  So now farmers are guilty of sin because their wheat and eggs might be eaten in the form of a cake at a gay wedding?  How the hell could they sell to this baker who is known to have committed the sin of enabling gay people by feeding them?  WTF is wrong with you.

Obligate to sin? Yeah wow cause selling food to gays is a sin.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yeah, no Christian I know allows people to participate in sin. Nor does he advocate it. He would never lead another brother in Christ astray.  If you weren't blind, you would see that it isn't the selling or the baking. If you weren't deaf, or without understanding as the Christian you claim to be, you would take the time to read the Bible. It clearly rebukes homosexuality, it also teaches you to stand up for your faith and for righteousness. What is so righteous about condoning this kind of sin? May I ask, what is wrong with you?


Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

1 Corinthians 15:58


You are so absolutely dense, you will never understand the "they have to deliver it to the wedding, thus they are part of the environment" part. You think that they would allow the couple to deliver such an expensive and well made cake to the wedding themself? How does that work out exactly? You ignore testimonies from people who have experience in the area, the bakery was not without a delivery service. But people cannot nor will they ever accept 'no' for an answer. Religious beliefs be damned. Constitutional rights be damned. The rights of any religious man adhering to his faith be damned also. He is nothing but a slave to political correctness. A slave to the sin he opposes.

You are weak in spirit, RKM. You are willing to sacrifice your Christian values for the sake of tolerating sinful behavior. I don't approve of homosexuality, but I will tolerate the person, not the sin. You claim to know what went through their heads, alas, I wish I could read minds like you. Stop pretending to know what people think unless you were there in their shoes the moment it happened.

And before I go, RKM:


> *14* Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person&#8217;s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else&#8217;s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
> 
> 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
> 
> ...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

The farmer toils in the fields for a living, none of his works offend anyone. He knows nothing of where the end product of his work goes. He has no choice nor does he care, for none of it violates his conscience.  The hens he dutifully raises, who lay the eggs which make the batter of that cake, carry on the life which God wills upon them; they serve their purpose in this world, they have no conscience of consequence, of right or wrong, of good or bad, or of sinfulness and righteousness. The couple in this bakery know what the Bible says about homosexuality, they have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of good or bad, a sense of sinfulness and righteousness. 

The part of the farmer or the coop of chickens he raises is of no consequence. A non sequitur. 

But the conscience of a man no longer matters. His beliefs are to be trampled underfoot with impunity, his sense of right and wrong judged summarily because he dares to have them. Who are you to judge the conscience of a man, or of any man, woman or child? Should you somehow come across the same dilemma this couple faced, expect no mercy from me, for you shewn none upon this couple or upon anyone who does likewise.



Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, for judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

James 2:12-13


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 10, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



It also bans eating BBQ hog sandwiches.
And eating fat.
Or blood.
Touching an "unclean" animal
Letting your hair become unkept
Tearing your clothes
Eating an animal which does not chew cud and has a divided hoof.
Touching the carcass of any of the banned animals (football would be out)
eating or touching carcasses of many types of birds
Touching carcasses of flying insects unless the legs are jointed
Eating any seafood without fins or scales  You eat shrimp you are sinning
Going to church within 32 days of having a boy baby
66 for a girl
And dozens and dozens more along with being gay.

Yet you pick ONLY ONE to quote scripture on.
How many hog sandwiches have you eaten? 
How many caterers refuse to wait on folks that eat hog sandwiches.
Eating Pork is A SIN, YOU ARE GOING TO HAYELL!!!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 10, 2013)

Jesus taught to have mercy on everyone. Never heard him put gay folks down.
Time to get over this gay boogeyman, God hates fags routine folks.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



What are you talking about? Do you judge a Christian solely because of what the Old Testament says? Is your view so black and white that you cannot see the entire picture? 

Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, *but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law *(Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).

Nowhere does it say I will "go to hayell" for it. 

Besides, you sense of of scripture is woefully flawed, sir.

Matthew 15:1-20  (Words of Jesus in red)

1Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat." 3He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say that whoever tells father or mother, 'Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God,' then that person need not honor the father. 6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said: 8 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.'" 10Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, *"Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles."* 12Then the disciples approached and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?" 13He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit." 15But Peter said to him, "Explain this parable to us." 16Then he said, *"Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."* (NRSV)


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Jesus taught to have mercy on everyone. Never heard him put gay folks down.
> Time to get over this gay boogeyman, God hates fags routine folks.



Oh, since when have I put any of them down? I have stated repeatedly here in this thread I have friends who are gay, yet nobody listens. So hellbent those of you are to condemn me, you see not my acts of mercy and tolerance. You want me to have mercy on the homosexual, but none on my Christian brethren? What double standard is this you impose on me? Did not Jesus say have mercy on *all* men?

It's time for tolerance and mercy to work both ways, Gadawg.

From the book of Genesis onwards, God makes his opinion of homosexuality known, starting with the instance of the unholy cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone. 

In Leviticus he makes it known again:



> You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJV, Leviticus 18:22)
> 
> If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJV, Leviticus 20:13)




And in the New Testament, which fulfilled and literally consolidated the laws of Moses, removing the penalty of death as a result of the death and resurrection of Christ (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21), Jesus himself makes the will of his father known:



> *What comes out of you is what defiles you.* For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)



In the book of First Corinthians the Apostle Paul makes God's will known:



> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
> 
> -1 Corinthians 6:9-11
> 
> ...



How can I go against that?

God does not hate the homosexual, he loves them, but he hates the sin. So too I, who will act in the same accordance. Being a Baptist, I assume this stance, same as the the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention:



> "We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy - one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ."


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

I am not without mercy, but I will nary be deprived of my convictions for so long as I draw breath in this world. So it is said, so it shall be done.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

This argument is ridiculous. The bakers were not forced to attend the wedding, they were simply asked to bake a bloody cake. Other than that, they had no part in the wedding at all. They are not condoning homosexuality, or the marriage by mixing a few ingredients together.

They have lost business because of their hot heads.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Jesus taught to have mercy on everyone. Never heard him put gay folks down.
> Time to get over this gay boogeyman, God hates fags routine folks.



The only boogeyman is in your head.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> This argument is ridiculous. The bakers were not forced to attend the wedding, they were simply asked to bake a bloody cake. Other than that, they had no part in the wedding at all. They are not condoning homosexuality, or the marriage by mixing a few ingredients together.
> 
> They have lost business because of their hot heads.



And Noomi, with all due respect, you are the least of all to judge. As I explained to RKM, they can bake the cake without the the burden of committing the sin, it is the delivery, the act of will, the intention of support that creates the sin, the final end which accomplishes the means. 

No they were not forced, and you are correct, but they knew what would happen if they followed through and accepted their request. And if may I point out: Everyone here from you to I, have been hotheads about this issue. Should we also not be punished with ruin? Just as you believed this couple should have been according to you?

But especially in this contest, the bigger hotheads were those who refused to allow a couple the right to act on their conscience.  Yes, it is quite petty that all of these arguments took over cake, but the overall principle remains. It is quite petty to put someone out of business because they hold different beliefs or religious convictions than you. Petty would be destroying the sakes and livelihoods of people who have the courage to stand up for their faith. Sad would be when a man of faith forsakes the values he holds dear in order to avoid the wrath of an unbeliever. Sad would be when all a man has to do is sacrifice his virtues for the sake of acceptance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> This argument is ridiculous. The bakers were not forced to attend the wedding, they were simply asked to bake a bloody cake. Other than that, they had no part in the wedding at all. They are not condoning homosexuality, or the marriage by mixing a few ingredients together.
> 
> They have lost business because of their hot heads.



I heard the conservatives won down there, you must be happy.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > This argument is ridiculous. The bakers were not forced to attend the wedding, they were simply asked to bake a bloody cake. Other than that, they had no part in the wedding at all. They are not condoning homosexuality, or the marriage by mixing a few ingredients together.
> ...



We are not happy, we have a bunch of circus clowns in power and many of us are scratching our heads.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Ha,ha, yes, in this thread all you have to do is disagree with some of them and they will insult and slander you.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > This argument is ridiculous. The bakers were not forced to attend the wedding, they were simply asked to bake a bloody cake. Other than that, they had no part in the wedding at all. They are not condoning homosexuality, or the marriage by mixing a few ingredients together.
> ...



The cake didn't have to be delivered, it could be picked up from the store. No sinning, nothing at all.

No one put the bakery out of business, they did that themselves.
Keep in mind that NOWHERE on their website does it say that they won't bake cakes for homosexual weddings. They say they bake cakes for ALL occasions. If they don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, state that on the website, and in the store.

Problem solved.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Here the bigots just think that the bigot bakers were unfairly treated when they actually got what they deserved.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



No, they really can't in Oregon.  Oregon has a state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and advertising discrimination based on sexual orientation would have gotten them in trouble a lot sooner - might have saved the gay couple a trip to their defunct bakery, though.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Why is it okay for churches, though? Everyone knows that a church won't marry a gay couple, why the different rules?


----------



## Gracie (Sep 10, 2013)

Individual said:


> Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> Essentially the government is allowing persons who have different, and perhaps higher moral standards, to be discriminated against and even threatened physically.
> The practical solution to the disagreement should have been for the couple to seek the services desired from another bakery in the competitive marketplace.
> The Kleins, in my opinion, have legal grounds to seek and receive damages as a result of the actions taken against them in exercising their 1st Amendment right.




This ^


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

Gracie said:


> Individual said:
> 
> 
> > Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> ...



Then wasn't it the right of the gay couple to use their free speech and call for a boycott of the bakery?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



A church is not a public business.  Churches can refuse to marry heterosexual couples that have been divorced, too.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 10, 2013)

I have a hard time with this. I've not only read both books, I've read both many times.

Love the sinner not the sin. I'm testy on this. Why should any Christian deny two people who want to join in love a cake.

Come on. 

Why would any good christian want to hurt these people?


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



We have religious freedom in this country and it is a basis of all our freedoms. One should not be forced to give up their sacred views to amuse another person.

I still would like you to address your comments about Indians. I find it very hypocritical of you to demand others to end their bigotry, while you seem to practice yours.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 10, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I don't get this couple at all that have denied the couple the right to a pretty wedding cake. 

That's all this is about.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> I have a hard time with this. I've not only read both books, I've read both many times.
> 
> Love the sinner not the sin. I'm testy on this. Why should any Christian deny two people who want to join in love a cake.
> 
> ...



Because they are bigots, and haven't read their Bibles properly. 

Some would say that in baking the cake, they are condoning the 'sin'.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

Gracie said:


> Individual said:
> 
> 
> > Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
> ...



In other words, we might as well not have a Civil Rights Act, if public businesses are allowed to discriminate.  Gays, and minorities have to just find some other business to serve them?  I don't think so.  If the couple has such warped beliefs that baking a cake for a homosexual couple is a sin, then they don't need to be in the cake baking business or any other business for that matter, because they are just using their faith as a cover for their bigotry.  They are selling their goods to "sinners" all day long, so what difference is in selling to a gay from selling to a wife beater, an adulterer, or pedophile, or just a plain everyday sinner like all of us?


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Who said anything about Indians?


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Individual said:
> ...



Of course it was.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Surely you can see it for a church Noomi. Come on.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > I have a hard time with this. I've not only read both books, I've read both many times.
> ...



Then that would make them really stupid Christians.

And really seriously fucked up.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 10, 2013)

I have been battling this for a long tome because of all of my gay friends back in TO. Its actually kept me from entering a ministry. 
Because I don't understand why I have to hate well maybe that's not the right word but I don't understand why I have to condemn them.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Nope. If it okay for the church (a business) to discriminate, why not other businesses, and vice versa?


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Well, yes, they are fucked up. They were pranked by a reporter and were happy to bake a cake for a woman who had multiple children out of wedlock (a sin) and were also happy to bake a cake for a woman who got a grant into human cloning.

They pick and choose their beliefs.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



A church is a religious venue, not a business.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



A church makes billions of dollars. Its a business. They are in it for a money, a lot of the time. They don't pay taxes either.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Some are, some just cover their expenses, they are given wide Constitutional freedoms in this country. They are granted freedom and immunities based on their beliefs. It is a protection of rights that are granted, just as other minorities are granted rights.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

Great, so if I start up the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't have to pay any tax?


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Great, so if I start up the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't have to pay any tax?



Not if you follow the IRS tax codes and laws.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Great, so if I start up the Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't have to pay any tax?
> ...



Do regular churches follow these laws, and if not, how do they get out of paying taxes?


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



They all have to follow the IRS tax rules, codes and laws to get and maintain tax exempt status.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:
			
		

> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In another thread about an Australian piece of scum, killing an Indian, you replied,



			
				Noomi said:
			
		

> What is wrong with refusing to train the Indian *XXXXX* who is going to steal your job?



Now it seems that the moderators X'd out your defamatory word, but since you posted that a couple weeks ago, you have failed to answer any questions about this racist statement.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 10, 2013)

I don't know what you said about it, but I stand by that statement.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> I don't know what you said about it, but I stand by that statement.



I said nothing you were not replying, you made a statement.

Then standing by the statement leads me to believe you are a racist.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Churches are non-profit organizations.

Most of the states have protected religiously affiliated nonprofits from potential government penalty for refusing to host same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Religious Exemptions On Gay Marriage Divides Church Advocacy Groups


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Individual said:
> ...



They filed a complaint with the state, they lose all their rights to complain in any other forum once they resort to violence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Most churches don't make thousands of dollars, much less billions.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



But when you explore the website, it quotes John 3:16, I mean right there it implies that these people may not approve of homosexuality. Surely they (this gay couple) can read, or use what amount of deductive reasoning they have? When they specify WEDDINGS they cater to weddings, the term "gay wedding" is purely exclusive. All in the terminology. There is a reason people differentiate between traditional weddings and gay weddings. Surely that isn't too hard to understand, Noomi.

And then again, how are you going to deliver a multi tiered cake to a wedding in your car? Wouldn't you rather trust someone, namely a professional, to deliver your cake on site? But for anyone to know what is sin in the Christian faith, they need to be a part of it, but because they aren't, namely people like you and others, they cannot call others down for their "sin" or lack thereof.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Because destroying the First Amendment rights of churches is next on the list after destroying the First Amendment rights of the individual members.

Don't be in such a damned rush.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

What kind of Christian would I be, if I sacrificed righteousness for the acceptance of men? If my friends cause me to stray in my walk with Christ, then I should dissociate. Because, alas, if they were truly my friends, and I theirs, they would respect my path whilst they walk their own.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> What kind of Christian would I be, if I sacrificed righteousness for the acceptance of men? If my friends cause me to stray my walk with Christ, then I should dissociate. Because, alas, if they were truly my friends, and I theirs, they would respect my path whilst they walk their own.



Here in hurts the heart though. And keeps me from ministry because I cannot find the answer.

Gays are not only my friends but when no one else would accept me, they did. A long time ago. 
I can't betray them.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of Christian would I be, if I sacrificed righteousness for the acceptance of men? If my friends cause me to stray my walk with Christ, then I should dissociate. Because, alas, if they were truly my friends, and I theirs, they would respect my path whilst they walk their own.
> ...



Nono, don't betray your friends, but at least have them acknowledge that you have your beliefs and that you acknowledge they have theirs. I spend most of my time here at home with my grandmother, alone. All of my "real" friends have moved on to other walks of life. But I would much rather keep my morals than to be led astray by so called "friends" who supposedly accept me for who I am and what I believe in.

In your case, TD

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:13

I will not sit here and tell you to abandon your friends. I will not attempt to understand. Not my place. I say this out of respect, not out of spite.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 11, 2013)

Love the sinner hate the sin.

Look why do we think them bad. I cant get my head around this.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Love the sinner hate the sin.
> 
> Look why do we think them bad. I cant get my head around this.



I never once said they were bad. You have the same philosophy I do. Nothing but total agreement. I am merely speaking of an aspect of mutual respect between people of different ideals.

I don't hate homosexuals, nor will I discriminate against them. But if they ask me to condone their way of life, I will not. I am what I am. That can never be changed. My faith in God is absolute.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Can you imagine me a pastor?

Isn't that the funniest? That's what they want me to be.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Love the sinner hate the sin.
> ...


Oh heavens I ididntt say your did.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Oh, you give yourself too little credit! I suggest you seek God's guidance. Go to him in prayer. Walking the path of ministry is a heavy burden to bear, but a mighty tool to win souls to Christ! Ministry is a gift, not all men and women are blessed with it. But if you feel the calling, ask God to help you find it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Yes of course. Nothing but a broad generalization. An overall summation of what I believe.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Tiny, seriously, what have you been smoking, and which liberal did you get it from?

First, there is no "right to a pretty cake".  Can we please stop inventing "rights" to every damned thing under the sun just because someone wants it?

Second of all, they didn't "deny them a pretty cake".  They just denied them one of THEIR cakes.  You telling me there are no other bakers in that town?  Puh-leeze.

Let's try to resist the urge to think with our smooshy girly emotions and stick to thinking with our brains, shall we?  You don't have a right - at least, not morally - to force someone to associate with you or do things for you, no matter how much you don't want it.  And it really doesn't matter if you say, "Well, you're a big meanyhead for not wanting to give me a cake, and it's wrong to be a meanyhead, so it should be ILLEGAL!"  This is not kindergarten.  Whether you think it's "nice" to do something or not in no way affects whether or not someone has the right to do it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Individual said:
> ...



Because the Civil Rights Act - and by the way, WHICH Civil Rights Act, exactly, did you have in mind? - was all about forced association for private entities?  I don't think so.

And "you don't think" that gays and minorities should have to find people to associate with who actually want to do so?  Why the hell not?  The entire rest of the adult world has to learn to put up with disappointment.  Why should gays and minorities be cushioned by the government from the fact that life sometimes sucks?

If you have such warped beliefs that it's up to YOU to decide what is and isn't a sin for someone else, then you shouldn't be having any input into the laws.  This may come as a shock to you, but the rest of the world does not recognize you as a moral arbiter, and is not interested in living life according to your dictates.

The difference is that it's THEIR difference to decide.  Why is it so fucking hard for you to get over yourself and realize that you are NOT allowed to say, "Well, your beliefs are WRONG, and mine are morally superior, so yours are invalid and you should do things MY way"?  What exactly is it with you that makes you feel so threatened by the idea of freedom for other people to be different from you?  You're all KINDS of enthusiastic about making OTHER people accept differences THEY don't like.  Double standard much?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



And one's First Amendment rights are based on YOUR PERSONAL judgement that the exercise thereof isn't "stupid and fucked up"?  Would it shock you to know that YOU do things that OTHER people find stupid and fucked up?  How'd you like to have your rights taken away based on someone else's judgement of how you should think and believe?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> I have been battling this for a long tome because of all of my gay friends back in TO. Its actually kept me from entering a ministry.
> Because I don't understand why I have to hate well maybe that's not the right word but I don't understand why I have to condemn them.



And who told you you have to condemn people?  You sure that's a requirement, and not just your own personal judgementalism telling you that it's your job to pass out decrees on everything?  I mean, look how much difficulty you're having right now.  The issue is whether or not people have the right to exercise their religious beliefs, and all you can talk about is whether or not YOU think their beliefs are correct.  Not once has it occurred to you to say, "Who the hell ASKED me whether their beliefs are correct? Why is it important that I decide that one way or another?  What business is it of mine?"

I think you're correct in not entering the ministry, because you appear to have some latent pride issues to work through.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Churches aren't businesses.

And why NOT let businesses decide who to do business with?  It's long past time we realize that the government does not and should not have the right to micromanage private entities.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Billions of dollars?  What the fuck are you talking about?  Churches, first of all, do not "make" money.  They are charities, and function on donations.  By law, they are required to spend nearly all of their income every year on church functions, being allowed to keep only a small percentage of their money on hand as a hedge against emergencies.  There is no money for them to be "in it" for.

Way to shoot your mouth off about something you know jack shit about, but just "know" because you've imagined it that way.  Naught but what I would expect from you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of Christian would I be, if I sacrificed righteousness for the acceptance of men? If my friends cause me to stray my walk with Christ, then I should dissociate. Because, alas, if they were truly my friends, and I theirs, they would respect my path whilst they walk their own.
> ...



And you think loving someone means you have to approve of and applaud everything they do?  The people in your life never do anything wrong, in your eyes, is that it?

I find it very hard to believe you can't find the answers to this.  I think you just don't want them to BE the answers, and so you keep trying to make reality be what you want.


----------



## Noomi (Sep 11, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



The Catholic Church is a billion dollar business.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 11, 2013)

If folks do not know that most churches make money they are a little slow.
The church I used to go to went through money like hot cakes. Built a new building at 5 million with 12 stained glass windows at 30K a piece.
Now what do they do with that money? A lot of good things.
But money is the drive of many churches. They buy a lot of expensive things they do not need. 
People can spend their own money on what they want to spend it on.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


I don't think you know what the word condoning means.

The rest of your post is just pure irony.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> The farmer toils in the fields for a living, none of his works offend anyone. He knows nothing of where the end product of his work goes. He has no choice nor does he care, for none of it violates his conscience.  The hens he dutifully raises, who lay the eggs which make the batter of that cake, carry on the life which God wills upon them; they serve their purpose in this world, they have no conscience of consequence, of right or wrong, of good or bad, or of sinfulness and righteousness. The couple in this bakery know what the Bible says about homosexuality, they have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of good or bad, a sense of sinfulness and righteousness.
> 
> The part of the farmer or the coop of chickens he raises is of no consequence. A non sequitur.
> 
> ...


The baker bakes in his kitchen.  The farmer farms on his farm.  But they both sell in the public market place.  You forgive the farmer of selling their goods to a baker that bakes cakes for gay weddings.  Then you judge the baker of sinning by selling the goods "baked" and assembled at a gay wedding.  You would have been ok with this baker baking the cake that went to the gay wedding if a non-gay wedding planner did the purchase and assembled the cake for the baker? What is wrong with you that you associate baking and selling cakes to gays as performing and condoning gay sex acts?

I pay my taxes does that mean I "condone" and enable Obama?  Your taxes paid for the road that leads to the location where the gays got married.  Does that mean you condoned and enabled sin?  How can you let your income be used to enable gay sin?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> I have a hard time with this. I've not only read both books, I've read both many times.
> 
> Love the sinner not the sin. I'm testy on this. Why should any Christian deny two people who want to join in love a cake.
> 
> ...


I don't know about everyone else on the planet, but I never mean to hurt other people. To me, its about following the rules that the Lord has for us and only the Lord can tell us why same gender relationships are unacceptable to him.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > I have a hard time with this. I've not only read both books, I've read both many times.
> ...



The impression I got from the reading was the reason is similar to the reason we are not supposed to eat pork.   People who ate pork, and participated in gay and unwed sexual relationships paid the price of not obeying said laws. Thus the laws were a way to convey a reason that was not understood scientifically at the time... it's god will.


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 11, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> 
> A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.
> 
> ...



This is a taste is a taste what progressivism will bring. Facism


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about everyone else on the planet, but I never mean to hurt other people. To me, its about following the rules that the Lord has for us and only the Lord can tell us why same gender relationships are unacceptable to him.
> ...


All that I can say is that if same gender relationships had been the Lord's intention, a male would not need a female in order to become a parent and vice versa. A woman never would have been made at all period since a man was made first.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Which, if we go with that number, means that it invests less than $1 in each of the l.2 billion Catholics living on Earth while at the same time does exemplary charitable relief work all around the world for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  I'm not Roman Catholic and have never been, but that seems like a real bargain to me.

The point is, however, that it doesn't matter what our religious faith is or whether we have any religious faith at all.  The point is that each of us have unalienable rights.  And when those are recognized, we each have the liberty to live our lives as we choose, believe as we choose, embrace what we will, reject what we can't accept, and all with impunity.   As soon as anybody can assume the right to tell another person what he or she MUST believe about anything or else the person will be punished or destroyed, there is no liberty.

The bakers did not deny the gay couple a wedding cake or a wedding.  They did exercise their unalienable right to not participate in something they could not in good consicence condone.   If all the rest of the world does not share their conscience in this matter, it is still their unalienable right to exercise their conscience.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



If man was made first... who was his mom?  Additionally, if that was the only plan / scheme devised by god, then why are there some beasts that do not require a male/female pair to propagate?  Further, why allow for sex on the fly if god only blesses long term marriages between a man and one woman?  Still further, why did god permit plural marriages in the old times but now only permits marriage between one man and one woman?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> They did exercise their unalienable right to not participate in something they could not in good consicence condone.   If all the rest of the world does not share their conscience in this matter, it is still their unalienable right to exercise their conscience.


And this is the exact same reason that was provided to condone discrimination based on skin color.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> If folks do not know that most churches make money they are a little slow.
> The church I used to go to went through money like hot cakes. Built a new building at 5 million with 12 stained glass windows at 30K a piece.
> Now what do they do with that money? A lot of good things.
> But money is the drive of many churches. They buy a lot of expensive things they do not need.
> People can spend their own money on what they want to spend it on.



That doesn't prove they made money, it just proves they spent it, kinda like the government. Lots of churches go into debt to have the latest nice things, despite the fact that the bible specifically speaks against it. 

But, by all means, keep spouting your hate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> I don't think you know what the word condoning means.
> 
> The rest of your post is just pure irony.



Do you know what it means?

If I bake a special order cake, and write Congratulations to Kate and Mary on it, I am condoning their relationship. If they buy a generic cake from me, and write it themselves, I am not.

See the difference?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > They did exercise their unalienable right to not participate in something they could not in good consicence condone.   If all the rest of the world does not share their conscience in this matter, it is still their unalienable right to exercise their conscience.
> ...



It is our unalienable right to discriminate for ANY reason.  It is NOT our unalienable right to deny rights to somebody else by imposing our convictions, prejudice, bigotry, or discrimination on another person.  The bakers did not do that.  They did not attempt to deny the gay couple a cake or a wedding.  They held no malice nor did they do anythng to punish or force the gay couple to do anything.  All they did was exercise their conscience in choosing not to participate in something they could not condone in good conscience.  The bakers were not the bigots.  Those who threatened and attempted to hurt or destroy the bakers were.

Bigotry that hurts people is evil.

Intelligent people understand that.

Bigots do not.  And those who would attempt to hurt or punish the bakers for their convictions are far worse bigots who discriminate in far more destructive ways than those bakers ever would be likely to do.  And it is evil.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > The farmer toils in the fields for a living, none of his works offend anyone. He knows nothing of where the end product of his work goes. He has no choice nor does he care, for none of it violates his conscience.  The hens he dutifully raises, who lay the eggs which make the batter of that cake, carry on the life which God wills upon them; they serve their purpose in this world, they have no conscience of consequence, of right or wrong, of good or bad, or of sinfulness and righteousness. The couple in this bakery know what the Bible says about homosexuality, they have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of good or bad, a sense of sinfulness and righteousness.
> ...



Apparently, you can't read, what a surprise.

By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



I have the impression that you are a pretentious asshole who thinks he knows more than anyone else.

Tell me something, genius, what scientific reason is there not to eat pork? Keep in mind that science tells us that pork is slightly healthier than beef because of the lower fat content before you start trying to prove how stupid and ignorant you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > They did exercise their unalienable right to not participate in something they could not in good consicence condone.   If all the rest of the world does not share their conscience in this matter, it is still their unalienable right to exercise their conscience.
> ...



The major difference being that discrimination under Jim Crow was required by law. Pretty sure you cannot say the same thing about the US now, but thanks for being stupid.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you know what the word condoning means.
> ...



No. You are executing your customers instructions to provide a sequence of letters on the cake.  Putting letters on the cake in the sequence requested is not condoning the content of the message formed by the sequence of letters, any more than printing a book of fiction is condoning the events in the story.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Your world is upside down on this one.  The bigots were the bakers not the gay people that responded to the bigotry of the bakers by picketing the bakers for their discrimination against gays.  Your accusation that the bakers were threatened is not supported by any evidence whatsoever other than the generic accusation made by the bigot bakers.  Where is the proof of your accusation of these threats? What threat? What specific threat?  What was threatened who was threatened and how where they threatened?  Can you even name one word that was uttered in this threat?  Just one word?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Can't read? I read quite well thank you.

>>> By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

I agree with this statement.  What makes you think your statement is any different than my explanation of why baking a cake for gays does not condone the activities of gays?  How is your apparent agreement of my statement of the difference between producing and using an indication that I can't read?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Wrong.  The laws of the land most certainly do require discrimination against same sex sexual orientation when it comes to marriage.  It's exactly the same as the Jim Crow laws only substitute sexual orientation for skin color.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The people that write Obama's speeches aren't responsible for what they wrote because they were following orders.

John Woo wasn't responsible for the memo he wrote that condoned torture because he was following orders.

I have some advice for you, shut the fuck up. The "I was only following orders" shtick didn't work in the past, and it won't work now.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



All those messages on Twitter and Facebook where they were threatened don't count as evidence in you world?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > The farmer toils in the fields for a living, none of his works offend anyone. He knows nothing of where the end product of his work goes. He has no choice nor does he care, for none of it violates his conscience.  The hens he dutifully raises, who lay the eggs which make the batter of that cake, carry on the life which God wills upon them; they serve their purpose in this world, they have no conscience of consequence, of right or wrong, of good or bad, or of sinfulness and righteousness. The couple in this bakery know what the Bible says about homosexuality, they have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of good or bad, a sense of sinfulness and righteousness.
> ...



You're pretty dense for a Christian, RKM. Although you are Christian in name only perhaps, since you don't mind putting down your faith. You're incredibly naive. Like I said, the farmer has no choice, he works for his sole benefit. He bears no burden of having his conscience violated. This couple on the other hand... well I've explained it ad nauseam. You are also ranting. You are upset because I have clearly demonstrated that homosexuality as a practice is contemptible in the sight of God.

Drawing up hypothetical scenarios to support your argument makes you desperate. All of them are non sequiturs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 11, 2013)

thanks A LOT for starting this thread BDBoop  Now Republican Basers are bumping it like theres no tomorrow


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



How ignorant does one have to be to not know the difference between writing a condolence and performing the task of calligraphy for the writer to put the writer's words on paper or cake?  The editor of a speech is not the same as the author of a speech.  The person who transfers the edited speech to the teleprompter may not be the same person that edited and/or authored the speech.  Further the person who reads the speech may not be the author of the speech.  Still further, the author, editors, and calligraphers who transfer a message to a cake may not "condone" the message.  The people who work on the cake most likely have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MESSAGE, let alone condone it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Excuse me, I forgot I was talking to an idiot. There is a difference between the government and a private business. The government uses guns to force people to do things. They always have, and always will. The government got into the marriage business to tell people who they cannot marry, and nothing you can say will change that. All marriage law is aimed at restricting people's rights, and opening it to same sex couples will not suddenly change the fact that it still prevents people who want to marry from doing so. If you really want marraige equality, tell the government to go away entirely. If you don't, stop pretending you do.

Forcing anyone to do something they object to, which is what you advocate, is wrong. Stop pretending that the bakers here are preventing the couple from getting married just because they won't decorate a cake, it makes you look even dumber than you already do.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Although I understand from your posts that this is a rhetorical question, are you really this retarded?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Wow. Thus ends your argument. Namecalling heralds the death of any argument.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> If man was made first... who was his mom?  Additionally, if that was the only plan / scheme devised by god, then why are there some beasts that do not require a male/female pair to propagate?  Further, why allow for sex on the fly if god only blesses long term marriages between a man and one woman?  Still further, why did god permit plural marriages in the old times but now only permits marriage between one man and one woman?


Adam did not have a mom because he was created by God and beasts are not people who can read and comprehend what the Lord's word is and if premarital sex is what you mean by "sex on the fly", the Lord does not condone such a thing and if plural marriages were allowed at one point, the Lord must have changed his mind about that specific issue, but never once was his mind changed about same gender relationships. Why do you think that the Lord decided to "start over" by having a 40 days and 40 nights rain happen?

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The farmer has no choice, but the baker does.  The farmer works for his sole benefit (yeah that's christian), but the baker works for the benefit of all (except baking cakes for gay marriages or other sinful gatherings).  ROFL  What planet do you live on?


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > If man was made first... who was his mom?  Additionally, if that was the only plan / scheme devised by god, then why are there some beasts that do not require a male/female pair to propagate?  Further, why allow for sex on the fly if god only blesses long term marriages between a man and one woman?  Still further, why did god permit plural marriages in the old times but now only permits marriage between one man and one woman?
> ...



The Lord changes his mind?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



He called me stupid.  I'll respond to that in kind if and when I feel like it.  Don't like it why don't you go back and edit your name calling.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Editors have been held legally liable for articles they didn't fact check. Can you explain that given the fact that they didn't actually write them? 

You are responsible for everything you do, even if you are only following orders. Unless you can explain why someone who does something under orders is not responsible for their actions, take that advice I gave you.


----------



## Alfalfa (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Hilarious.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I have explained, in detail, and through multiple posts, the difference between baking a cake, and having someone buy it, and writing a special sentiment on it. I can even prove to you that you don't believe the retarded crap that the baker is not responsible for the words they put on a cake if you want me to.

Would you like me to prove to you that you are a lying sack of shit?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > If man was made first... who was his mom?  Additionally, if that was the only plan / scheme devised by god, then why are there some beasts that do not require a male/female pair to propagate?  Further, why allow for sex on the fly if god only blesses long term marriages between a man and one woman?  Still further, why did god permit plural marriages in the old times but now only permits marriage between one man and one woman?
> ...



How did he create Adam? Was Adam ever a baby? How did Adam eat as a baby? Was he raised by the animals? Angels?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Resorting to petty insults now?

One has no control, the other does. It's quite simplistic for well framed minds.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why would I want you to prove that I believe the baker is responsible for the words they put on a cake, when clearly I do not believe the baker is responsible for the words they would have had to put on the cake for this wedding?  I believe there may be some culpability of the baker if the message is non-fictional hate speech, but I'm not sure on the letter of the law wrt. calligraphers who do work for someone that has authored hate speech.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Sure, we can play "Who's The Bigger Hypocrite" later. But as it stands, you have been on a name calling tirade for a while now. So, if you have any real arguments, use them in place of the rank puerility you're displaying right now.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You called me dense, desperate, naive, upset, ranting, and accused me of putting down my faith, all of which are petty insults, this just in one post.  So I responded in kind to make you feel at ease.  

Since when do farmers have no control? How does that work?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



See the slippery slope you embark on? In order to condemn one man, you must condemn those who indirectly or unknowingly contributed to his "evil" act. Yes, your slippery slope argument is a failure. Placing culpability where it doesn't belong. Condemning those who deserve none. You may think you're clever, but you're plainly predictable.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Those are statements of fact, unlike calling someone "retarded."

They don't get to dictate where the corn or the grain they grow goes once they sell it to distributors. Where it goes, nobody knows. The ingredients in that cake are given out for general use. The farmer has no control over where it is distributed. *Lots of people would starve if farmers had your mindset.* Once he gives it away he has no control over where it goes. I know because my grandmother was a farmers daughter from 1947 until she graduated in 1960. I know more about these things, RKM.

You imply culpability where none exists. You cannot live with the error your argument presents.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I did not make a slippery slope argument, you did.  Neither did I condemn anyone, well except Obama, but that's another thread.  Where did this accusation come from? 

What do you have against someone being predictable on this matter?  Do you see your position as unpredictable? 

Am I cleaver? dunno no more or less than the next guy....


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

Alfalfa said:


> The Lord changes his mind?


I don't know about now, but I guess the Lord changed his mind once back in the earlier days.



RKMBrown said:


> How did he create Adam? Was Adam ever a baby? How did Adam eat as a baby? Was he raised by the animals? Angels?


He created Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and I guess that the Lord raised him because the animals wouldn't have been able to do it.

God bless you two always!!!   

Holly


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Deny it all you want. Make all the denials you want. You are no longer defending your points. You condemned this couple, and namely other Christians with their mindset as bigots for standing up for what the Bible clearly teaches. I see my position as biblically based. If you were indeed a devout Christian, you would try to prove BIBLICALLY why this couple are bigots, and why homosexuality should be accepted by the Christian faith. Clearly all you have are your emotions and political talking points.


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 11, 2013)

Do you think this bit of fascism turns homosexuals on and that's why they want it used so much?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> They don't get to dictate where the corn or the grain they grow goes once they sell it to distributors. Where it goes, nobody knows. The ingredients in that cake are given out for general use. The farmer has no control over where it is distributed. Lots of people would starve if farmers had your mindset. Once he gives it away he has no control over where it goes. I know because my grandmother was a farmers daughter from 1947 until she graduated in 1960. I know more about these things, RKM.
> 
> You imply culpability where none exists. You cannot live with the error your argument presents.



I see so you meant to say some farmers only use distributors and are clueless as to what the food is used for.  You realize of course that only some distributors distributed to this baker right?  You realize that some farmers are in fact distributors right?  You realize that some farmers bake cakes right?   

Maybe you don't know "everything?"


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > They don't get to dictate where the corn or the grain they grow goes once they sell it to distributors. Where it goes, nobody knows. The ingredients in that cake are given out for general use. The farmer has no control over where it is distributed. Lots of people would starve if farmers had your mindset. Once he gives it away he has no control over where it goes. I know because my grandmother was a farmers daughter from 1947 until she graduated in 1960. I know more about these things, RKM.
> ...



You realize you're speculating, right?

Should these unwitting farmers slash distributors be punished too? Just for inadvertently having their crops sold to and refined into the ingredients these bakers used?  I figured as much.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Alfalfa said:
> 
> 
> > The Lord changes his mind?
> ...


From the dust is not how, it's a partial list of contents.  We all are all primarily comprised the dust of the ground and water.  Why wouldn't the animals have been able to do it?  Don't animals have babies too?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Correct.  My statements and yours in this regard are all speculative statements. The only facts we have on this case is a report of a generic accusation by the bakers and a report of discrimination against baking the gay couple's cake reported as admitted to by the bakers.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...


I'm not the one claiming discrimination against providing goods that are used at gay marriage ceremonies is a requirement to be a good christian. You are.  You are the one arguing it's ok to not discriminate against gays if a middle man is involved.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> From the dust is not how, it's a partial list of contents.  We all are all primarily comprised the dust of the ground and water.  Why wouldn't the animals have been able to do it?  Don't animals have babies too?


The dust is the only thing mentioned in the Lord's word when man was created.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly

P.S. Yes, animals have babies too, but what do you mean by "Why wouldn't the animals have been able to do it?" Do what?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



If you truly believed that artists were not responsible for their words that would apply even if those words are non fictional hate speech. Since it doesn't, you are just what I said you are, a lying sack of shit.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Sure.  The editors job is to edit. One task in editing is to ensure the message is factual and is not false/slanderous etc.

The baker is not an editor of the message. But as I already said there may be some culpability if the message is a hate message.  Which is ironic in this case, no?

Yes, "you are responsible for everything you do, even if you are only following orders."  However,  the action you are responsible for when baking a cake is to ensure the cake does not poison the people that eat the cake.  The religious fallacy that you are responsible for a gay marriage because you baked a cake for it is quite frankly, ludicrous.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > From the dust is not how, it's a partial list of contents.  We all are all primarily comprised the dust of the ground and water.  Why wouldn't the animals have been able to do it?  Don't animals have babies too?
> ...



I would have assume a nurturing animal who was already nursing, could in fact nurse a baby.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't think "their" means what you think it means.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Sure, but the Lord provided what Adam needed and obviously one thing that he needed was a woman.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You are still a lying sack of shit.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 11, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I don't think "tolerance", "bigotry", and "inequality" mean what you think they mean. I suggest you try putting the shoe on the other foot.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > I have a hard time with this. I've not only read both books, I've read both many times.
> ...



And where in the Bible does God tell you to go and mistreat people who you think their gender relationships are unacceptable to him?

God's rules are to "love" everyone like you love yourself - so tell me how being telling yourself that you are an abomination to God is a way to love yourself?


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

^^^ Sharing the Lord's word with others is not a way of mistreating other people. It is letting them know how things are from his perspective. Parents are to love their kids, but that does not mean that they will never teach them anything...or punish them when they have done wrong.

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## Mertex (Sep 11, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop - Washington Times
> ...



No, conservatism is the what brings Facism, if left unchecked.

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. 
~ Franklin D. Roosevelt Quotes

14 POINTS OF FASCISM 


1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism 

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia. 

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights 

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation. 

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause 

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly. 

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism 

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite. 

5. Rampant sexism 

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses. 

6. A controlled mass media 

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses. 

7. Obsession with national security 

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous. 

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together 

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion. 

9. Power of corporations protected 

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens. 

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated 

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice. 

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts 

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist. 

12. Obsession with crime and punishment 

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power. 

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption 

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population. 

14. Fraudulent elections 

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite. 
14 Points of Fascism


----------



## Mertex (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> ^^^ Sharing the Lord's word with others is not a way of mistreating other people.



There is a time and a place to do that.  Telling people they are an abomination to the Lord is not sharing God's word, it is using it to make people feel inferior.



> It is letting them know how things are from his perspective.


 Bakers are not in business to preach the word, they are in business to bake.  I'm sure this couple was aware of  Oregon's law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and chose to go against it.



> Parents are to love their kids, but that does not mean that they will never teach them anything...or punish them when they have done wrong.


The bakers are not the lesbian's parents and it is not their duty to teach anybody anything.  And justly so, the bakers have been punished because what they did was wrong.



> God bless you always!!!   Holly


I am blessed, thank you.  And, I don't impose my beliefs on others, especially when they don't ask me to.  What these bakers should have done is bake the cake and pray for the couple, if they really were concerned about the condition of the heart of the LGBT couple.  It is apparent that they have misunderstood their position as Christians and as Bakers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

Mertex said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Government abuse always comes from the government. 

Let me repeat that, ALWAYS.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

Mertex said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Sharing the Lord's word with others is not a way of mistreating other people.
> ...


The people themselves may not be an abomination, but their actions are and "abomination" is the term that is used in the Lord's word and them bakers can do whatever they want with their business because it is their business which gives them the right to refuse service to whoever they want and no they are not the couple's parents, but that does not stop them from having the right to share what they believe with other people. Also those who want to share what they believe don't have to wait until they are asked to. They have a right to take some initiative which leads me to say that I don't believe that they misunderstood their positions as Christians because I believe that sharing the Lord's word with others is what the Lord wants done with his word in the first place.   

God bless you always!!!   

Holly


----------



## Mertex (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Duh?

And your point?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Sep 11, 2013)

...then the lord said, "Let there be a computer mouse", and behold, it was good. And the people who were wailing and rending their garmets because of the ravings of false prophets clicked on their mouses. and Holly disappeared. 

And it was good.

{Click}


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



The only way private power becomes stronger than government is if you are a delusional conspiracy nit that doesn't understand politics.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 11, 2013)

JOSweetHeart said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...


Just goes to show that you are not even familiar with the situation.  There is a law in Oregon, where these bakers do business, and it says you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.  What part of that do you not understand?



> and no they are not the couple's parents, but that does not stop them from having the right to share what they believe with other people.


 Are you totally obtuse?
The couple didn't go to them to be preached at, they went to get a cake baked.


> Also those who want to share what they believe don't have to wait until they are asked to.


This whole situation didn't develop because the bakers "shared" as you want to call it with the lesbian couple.  They refused to service them like they are supposed to, like they service other people.



> They have a right to take some initiative which leads me to say that I don't believe that they misunderstood their positions as Christians because I believe that sharing the Lord's word with others is what the Lord wants done with his word in the first place.



Your comments lead me to believe that you are totally unable to grasp the situation.  They misunderstood their position as Christians because Jesus doesn't tell his followers to force others to accept their beliefs.    And you continue to say "sharing" when they didn't share God's word which is "love" - they shared hatred by telling these people that they are unworthy to God.  If that is what your religion teaches you to do, it is obviously not Christian.




> God bless you always!!!
> 
> Holly



May God bless you with enlightenment, because you seem to be in a delusional cloud.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 11, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I understand enough to know that the GOP tries ultra hard to provide power to the wealthy.  If the wealthy control the government, they are stronger than the government.  Perhaps you are the one that does not understand politics.


----------



## JOSweetHeart (Sep 11, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> ...then the lord said, "Let there be a computer mouse", and behold, it was good. And the people who were wailing and rending their garmets because of the ravings of false prophets clicked on their mouses. and Holly disappeared.
> 
> And it was good.
> 
> {Click}


May your mouse rest in peace because it has obviously kicked the bucket.



Mertex said:


> May God bless you with enlightenment, because you seem to be in a delusional cloud.


Right back at you!

God bless you two always!!!

Holly


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 11, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Like I said, a conspiracy nit.

If the wealthy controlled the government Microsoft would never have been charged with anti trust violations.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Jesus, you really have no idea how anything in the world other than your little clamshell burger fryer works, do you?

"The Catholic Church" is not the homogenous, monolithic entity you imagine it to be, at least in a financial sense.  Nor is it a business in any sense.

Because the Catholic Church is a religious institution that spans all the continents on the globe, its individual churches and dioceses maintain independent records and are subject to the laws and regulations for non-profits and charities of their localities.  Think of it in terms of McDonald's:  The Roman Catholic Church issues franchises in its name to the various individual churches and dioceses and charities, which then operate with basic autonomy, but with the requirement that they adhere to company policies, ie. religious doctrine.

The Catholic Church, like every other non-profit in this country, is required to spend most of its annual income - which comes from donations, not from business operations - on the religious and charitable operations listed as its purpose on its legal paperwork.  To call it a "business" simply because it is a popular charity for donation is to dismiss the International Red Cross, for example, as a "business" because IT takes in large amounts of donations every year, as well.

Learn the difference between "business" and "non-profit", because I assure you it's NOT in the amount of money involved.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Frigging moron doesn't understand the universe, and thinks the fault is with the universe.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 12, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Well the GOP are certainly sucking at it because now the power belongs to the moocher class.
They vote themselves paychecks and elect leaders that sign the checks.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > If folks do not know that most churches make money they are a little slow.
> ...



Usually, churches start a separate fund specifically for things like building or remodeling, instead of using the general funds.  But yes, churches are as subject to financial mismanagement just like any other organization full of humans.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Bullshit.  All the laws regarding marriage say is that the government is not going to legally recognize same-sex relationships as official marital contracts.  The Jim Crow laws, on the other hand, actively required private entities to deny service to minorities.  Marriage laws don't require private citizens to do anything, UNTIL they're changed to favor homosexuals, at which time they become as illegally coercive as Jim Crow was.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And isn't it really up to the individual to decide if they want to abdicate responsibility for their actions and the words that they transcribe?  Just because some immoral doofus on the Internet decides that it's "just transcribing letters with no meaning" doesn't obligate anyone else to view it that way.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> JOSweetHeart said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



"Read the book?  Why the hell should I read the book when I can pester people on the Internet to teach me Bible 101 classes while I make asinine comments on something I haven't bothered to learn anything about?"

Pretty much says it all about taking leftists seriously, hmm?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Some people do not understand the difference between making a point while telling someone they're stupid for needing it made, and calling someone stupid as the entire point you're making.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > JOSweetHeart said:
> ...



But even somebody who is incapable of arguing a concept whether that be the Bible or the topic of this thread is entitled, as an unalienable right, to his own beliefs however bigoted, warped, prejudiced, or trollish they might be.

Just as all of us are entitled to the wisdom to reject those same beliefs and disapprove of the bigotry, warpedness, prejudice, and trollism.

But, if we believe in liberty and unalienable rights, none of us are entitled to demand that others believe as we believe or else we will punish and/or destroy them.

This is the whole point I have been making on this thread.  I do not defend the beliefs of the bakers. Their beliefs are theirs to hold and are none of my business.   I only defend their right to hold the beliefs they hold.  And their right to choose not to participate in something that they do not condone without having those claiming moral supeiority descending upon them to punish and/or destroy them.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 12, 2013)

I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
> I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
> No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.



Such snideness. You should know better. Now you're just making fun of them. If anyone here had a real argument against this couple for what they did, they wouldn't resort to such asininity. Nothing personal, sir.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
> I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
> No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.



But you see, the bakers did not act or care what anybody eats.  They did not deny the gay couple a wedding cake nor a wedding.  They left that to the conscience and convictions of the gay couple and did nothing to obstruct them in doing whatever they chose to do.

They did elect to exercise their unalienable right to not participate themselves in something they could not condone.

Your doing a background check on the hypothetical person you describe would NOT require you to condone, participate in, or in any other way be involved in ham sandwiches or shrimp cocktails.

And therein is the difference and why your example is a totally different thing from the issue in the OP.

And nevertheless, I would defend your right to close your own business for any reason you might have for doing that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 12, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
> I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
> No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.



Good, then you won't keep pretending you are morally superior to people with morals.


----------



## Mertex (Sep 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The moocher class?  I guess you need some attitude adjustment.  And this from a right-wing rag.

From the, you never hear about that from the media file  Those Evil, Rich People that Democrats are always wailing about are actually  Democrats.

While I dont agree in referring to rich people as Evil, Democrats are often making such accusations. But what most people dont realize is that the Top 3 richest people in the country are all Democrats. This list includes: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett & Larry Ellison are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $126 Billion Dollars.
Those ?Evil, Rich People? ? are Democrats | New American Gazette


In response to these pernicious memes, some Democrats have pointed to analyses, such as those of the Tax Foundation ("Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Footing the Bill"), which show that states that tend to support Republican presidential candidates (red states) also tend to receive more from the federal government than they send in taxes. Thus red states are welfare states.
Red States are Welfare States - dKosopedia

I bet that came as a shock!  Learn something new every day when you go somewhere besides Faux News.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 12, 2013)

114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 12, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> 114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?



Welcome to the fray, my friend.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oooh, that one probably stuck, just like your arguments.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Right there with you on that.  Far be it from me to prevent leftist bigots from exercising their right to make public fools of themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oh, like WE are the ones advocating the suppression of ideas and opinions we don't like.  Not hardly, Jack.


----------



## bendog (Sep 12, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> 114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?



Not that, Sir, was offensive.  LOL


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 12, 2013)

bendog said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > 114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?
> ...



Golly-gosh gee willickers... I have no idea what you're talking about...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Libraries do not burn books, which is something everyone who had ever been inside one would understand without it being explained.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why, not are there not "stories" of gay people in books?  Think of the great sin it would be to for a Christian to let sinners read these stories. The Christians would be liable and go to hell for allowing these books to be stored and read.  For that matter how can Christians in good faith allow the bible to be written, printed again and again repeating the same sins over and over again of writing about sin.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 12, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You mean like your advocacy of gay marriage?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 12, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> ...having those claiming moral supeiority descending upon them to punish and/or destroy them.



Lies made up by the bigoted bakers and repeated by you hundreds of times with no corroborating facts.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 12, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
> ...



Well, you are right, I do not believe in the way that couple dealt with this so maybe it is snideness. What they are doing is snideness also as then do not believe in what the gay couple is doing. Nothing personal but you need to learn the meaning of the words you use.
How is speaking exactly what that couple is doing making fun of them? 
What is the difference in what the Bible says about ham sandwich and shrimp eaters and being a homosexual?
The Bible specifically states that eating pork is a sin, many times, MANY MORE TIMES than speaking about homosexuality.
The Bible specifically states eating shrimp is an abomination unto you.
The only asinine argument here are from those that single out gay folks to persecute and turning a blind eye towards everything else the Bible says about what is an abomination and sin.
That would be you, nothing personal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 12, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Why, not do you understand the grammar rules of?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 12, 2013)

Gadawg73 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I quoted to you the specific verse in the Bible where Jesus explained away that part of eating pork being sinful. I don't peg you for being unintelligent, sir, but can you not read? Just because the Bible says it less DOES NOT make it any more less of a sin! Your overly informal interpretation of the Bible will be your own undoing. I will be frank, I criticized your comment because of your lack of Biblical knowledge. You know so much about the laws of men, but literally nothing about the laws of God. 

When Jesus died on the cross and rose again on the third day, he was quoted as saying, "I came not to abolish the law of the prophets, but to fulfill." The term fulfill means to "meet the the requirements" to "pay a debt owed" as it were. Instead of God killing off every man woman and child who sinned under the old law, he paid for their sin with his life. It is such a simple aspect of Christianity dawg, yet you fail to see it.

Namely in the book of Hebrews:



> *Christ&#8217;s Sacrifice Once for All*
> 
> 10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming&#8212;not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
> 
> ...



Just how exactly did this straight couple persecute this gay couple? Denying service? That's a crock. So, what happens if I make you do something that violates your faith? Will you freely do it? Or will you reject me? Since when am I not allowed to fight for my faith? I don't use words just for the sake of using them, and I most certainly don't exercise such logic as "the bible says it's a sin less than homosexuality, so therefore it must condone homosexuality."


----------



## TemplarKormac (Sep 12, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



And just for a little clarification....


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why don't you understand how to move a comma yourself?  Do you have people wipe your ass for you?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 13, 2013)

The Founders risked all their blood and treasure to give us a Constitution that recognized our unalienable rights to think, believe, worship, and be who we are.  Even if who we are is a bigot.

But only the worst kind of bigot would ignore that, would deny somebody their unalienable rights, would attempt to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are.   To do that is not only bigoted, but it is evil.

The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody.  They denied nothing to anybody.  They execised their unalienable right to be who they are.  And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong.  And it is evil.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 13, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> The Founders risked all their blood and treasure to give us a Constitution that recognized our unalienable rights to think, believe, worship, and be who we are.  Even if who we are is a bigot.
> 
> But only the worst kind of bigot would ignore that, would deny somebody their unalienable rights, would attempt to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are.   To do that is not only bigoted, but it is evil.
> 
> The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody.  They denied nothing to anybody.  They execised their unalienable right to be who they are.  And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong.  And it is evil.



Wrong. The States had the power to manage bigotry, and did.  The feds were prohibited from establishing or restricting religion, not the states. That which you speak, Incorporation, came with the 14th amendment. 

Who has denied somebody their unalienable rights?  Who has attempted to punish or destroy somebody because of what they think, believe, worship, or who they are?  Where is your proof? Asked and ignored dozens of times.

>>> The bakers did not attempt to punish or destroy anybody.  They denied nothing to anybody.  
Incorrect, the bakers admitted to passing judgment on the gay couple for having a gay wedding and in response "denying" them their services and further the bakers admit to "slandering" the gay couple for their "biblical sins."

>>> And to threaten, badger, demonstrate, punish, and attempt to destroy them purely because they hold a conviction not shared by others is wrong.  And it is evil.

Who did this? Where is your proof?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Spoken like someone who doesn't read, and probably couldn't tell us where to FIND the nearest library to his house.

I have news for you, Sparkles.  THIS Christian reads voraciously, and routinely runs across homosexual characters in books.  Christians don't advocate pretending that things we oppose don't exist.  We leave THAT territory to liberals.

And as throughout this entire thread, NO ONE GIVES A TIN SHIT HOW YOU THINK CHRISTIANITY SHOULD BE PRACTICED.  Please get that through your pointy little dunce cap and the rock skull underneath it.  Your opinion is not solicited, is not welcome, and is utterly irrelevant on the subject of how anyone else's beliefs are practiced.  You are not me, you are not God, and you are not my pastor, and those are the only three I can think of who have any input whatsoever into MY spiritual situation.

Please stop frantically trying to vote in an election you don't have a ballot for, you nosy bastard.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The question was why do you think libraries burn books, which is why mocking your grammar was an appropriate response to your bigotry against someone's sexual preference.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Sorry, Sparkles, but I don't have to advocate every hair-brained crackpot feel-good leftist theory that comes down the pike in order to avoid "suppression of ideas".  You're perfectly welcome to believe any moronic thing that enters your head with my blessing.  You're welcome to tell the whole world about your moronic thoughts, also with my blessing.  Opposing you doesn't mean I'm oppressing you, and maybe you should lose the frilly panties and stop whining about your inability to function if everyone doesn't agree with you.

I don't give a hot damn what homosexuals and their buddies do with their lives, which is OBVIOUSLY more than I can say for them, since they put so much time and effort into ruining the lives of others who run afoul of them.  I just don't happen to think they need or should have official government recognition of what they do with their lives.

Tattoo that somewhere, Nancy Boy, because I get tired of repeating it _ad nauseam _every time you break out the violins about how "violated" you feel by the knowledge that someone in the world thinks you're a dipshit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Now THAT'S funny.  Expecting you to write YOUR POST in readable English is US requiring people to wipe our asses for us, but YOU expecting US to move YOUR FUCKING COMMA to the correct place isn't you doing the same?  Your laughable hypocrisy continues to amuse.

Here's a thought, you lazy leftist shitforbrains: Why should we think you have any wisdom to impart to us, when you don't even have the basic grammar skills to impart it WITH?  If you're going to write like an 8th grader, you shouldn't be surprised if your pronouncements get treated like an 8th graders.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Sep 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Founders risked all their blood and treasure to give us a Constitution that recognized our unalienable rights to think, believe, worship, and be who we are.  Even if who we are is a bigot.
> ...



And once again, you demonstrate that you're an ignoranus (that would be someone who's both stupid AND an asshole).

The states also have constitutions.  I know you're probably not aware of this, since as a leftist, you worship at the altar of national government, but they do.  This is what Oregon's says:

Section 2. Freedom of worship. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Please do tell me how this law requiring forced association in business against one's religious beliefs is in keeping with what is SUPPOSED to be the highest law in the state of Oregon.

Furthermore, you once again reveal that you are a crying little panty-wearer, by your "They dared to tell someone they disapprove of them!  They PUNISHED AND DESTROYED THEM!" rant.  Butch up a little, buttercup.

Also, dimwit, "slander" would require that the bakers say something that is factually untrue about the lesbos.  They didn't.  They stated their opinion, which by definition cannot be slander.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 13, 2013)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You might want to explain how my statement about the "fact" that the states manage this stuff is evidence in your pea brain that I said the opposite.  Booze?  And they most certainly did admit to slander.  NVM... Back it the bin smut mouth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 13, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Is the part of your brain that says they admitted to slander the same part that only holds people who write things you disagree with responsible for following orders?


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 14, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Huh?


----------

