Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[JoeB131]

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture using the vehicle of marriage or adoption or education.

Okay, then they shouldn't be in that business.

And MRS. Klein shouldn't have invited the Cryer-Bowman's to use their shop to buy a cake for that express purpose, which is what she did.

 

[rightwinger]

... the Kleins, once they were informed they were in clear violation of the law, could have either apologized or actually do the service they promised.

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture using the vehicle of marriage or adoption or education.

My favorite part of this are those that say they can't deny anyone if they serve adulterers.

Most religions believe in forgiveness as long as those asking do not intend to keep sinning.

If one enters the institution intending to be loyal to the spouse, then the Baker is following religious norms. If the religion the Baker follows preaches that Gay sex is a sin, he would be supplying the product to someone who outwardly intends to sin.

Far different.

What about atheists?
They are not asking forgiveness and still get cakes

 

[JoeB131]

A Baker can use religious reasoning to refuse Military service if drafted, but can't refuse to Bake a cake?

Yeah, this is all very goofy

Um, yeah, besides the fact we haven't drafted anyone in 45 years, the point is that military service during a draft is compulsary.

Owning a bakery is not. No one is making the Kleins own a bakery. If Mr. Klein feels that baking a cake will really send him to hell, then he has the option to NOT BAKE A CAKE!

 

[rightwinger]

This is all part of Plan B for conservatives

They failed miserably in their attempt to stop same sex marriage

Now, they are looking for a way to harass gay couples

 

[Pop23]

... the Kleins, once they were informed they were in clear violation of the law, could have either apologized or actually do the service they promised.

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture using the vehicle of marriage or adoption or education.

My favorite part of this are those that say they can't deny anyone if they serve adulterers.

Most religions believe in forgiveness as long as those asking do not intend to keep sinning.

If one enters the institution intending to be loyal to the spouse, then the Baker is following religious norms. If the religion the Baker follows preaches that Gay sex is a sin, he would be supplying the product to someone who outwardly intends to sin.

Far different.

What about atheists?
They are not asking forgiveness and still get cakes

If an atheist answered the question in the same manner, then the Baker should have the same right of refusal. I don't see the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

My favorite part of this are those that say they can't deny anyone if they serve adulterers.

Most religions believe in forgiveness as long as those asking do not intend to keep sinning.

If one enters the institution intending to be loyal to the spouse, then the Baker is following religious norms. If the religion the Baker follows preaches that Gay sex is a sin, he would be supplying the product to someone who outwardly intends to sin.

Far different.

Not really. If you know that that person cheated on wife #1 with wife #2 before they got married, you should deny them service.

More to the point, there's a whole lot of behaviors in the bible that they should refuse service for.

If the bride wears pants, wears jewelry or braids, or her hair short -

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." -- Deuteronomy 22:5

"Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." -- 1 Timothy 2:9

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." -- 1 Peter 3:3

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." -- 1 Corinthians 11:14-15


Shit, if they aren't virgins on their wedding nights, they shouldn't get married.

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.-- Deuteronomy 22:13-22

I mean, here's the problem with you guys who keep invoking the bible to defend the Kleins... if they were really biblical literalists, they'd probably never sell a cake to anyone.

 

[Pop23]

This is all part of Plan B for conservatives

They failed miserably in their attempt to stop same sex marriage

Now, they are looking for a way to harass gay couples

Wrong

 

[Pop23]

My favorite part of this are those that say they can't deny anyone if they serve adulterers.

Most religions believe in forgiveness as long as those asking do not intend to keep sinning.

If one enters the institution intending to be loyal to the spouse, then the Baker is following religious norms. If the religion the Baker follows preaches that Gay sex is a sin, he would be supplying the product to someone who outwardly intends to sin.

Far different.

Not really. If you know that that person cheated on wife #1 with wife #2 before they got married, you should deny them service.

More to the point, there's a whole lot of behaviors in the bible that they should refuse service for.

If the bride wears pants, wears jewelry or braids, or her hair short -

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." -- Deuteronomy 22:5

"Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." -- 1 Timothy 2:9

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." -- 1 Peter 3:3

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." -- 1 Corinthians 11:14-15


Shit, if they aren't virgins on their wedding nights, they shouldn't get married.

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.-- Deuteronomy 22:13-22

I mean, here's the problem with you guys who keep invoking the bible to defend the Kleins... if they were really biblical literalists, they'd probably never sell a cake to anyone.

Word walls won't help you. Most christian churches believe in redemption. And if the Baker asked the question to someone he knew was previously married, do you intend to be faithful and they answered no, he should have the same right to refuse service to them as he should with gay couples who are obviously intending to sin.

Now prove he provide this service to someone he knew would be unfaithful and I will agree with you. Unless you can, then you are simply wrong

 

[Pop23]

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture using the vehicle of marriage or adoption or education.

Okay, then they shouldn't be in that business.

And MRS. Klein shouldn't have invited the Cryer-Bowman's to use their shop to buy a cake for that express purpose, which is what she did.

No, they should be allowed to do business while conforming to church teachings

 

[JoeB131]

Word walls won't help you. Most christian churches believe in redemption. And if the Baker asked the question to someone he knew was previously married, do you intend to be faithful and they answered no, he should have the same right to refuse service to them as he should with gay couples who are obviously intending to sin.

Why would a baker ask that question at all? You see the problem here, buddy. The fact he committed adultery- according to the Bible - is that they should be stoned to death. It's right there in the fucking bible.

The thing is, either you are going to be a bible literalist, or you are going to have to realize that you can't selectively apply the bible because you don't like people.

Pretty simple, no?

Now prove he provide this service to someone he knew would be unfaithful and I will agree with you. Unless you can, then you are simply wrong

I kind of don't have to. The very fact that he provides services to other people who are in violation of bible law is the problem.

No, they should be allowed to do business while conforming to church teachings

So if they determine that their INTERPRETATION of Church Teaching (because it wasn't like he called the pastor to get a ruling here) means they don't have to follow the health codes, that's cool, too?

Sorry, man, religion should not be a "Get out of jail free card".

 

[Pop23]

Word walls won't help you. Most christian churches believe in redemption. And if the Baker asked the question to someone he knew was previously married, do you intend to be faithful and they answered no, he should have the same right to refuse service to them as he should with gay couples who are obviously intending to sin.

Why would a baker ask that question at all? You see the problem here, buddy. The fact he committed adultery- according to the Bible - is that they should be stoned to death. It's right there in the fucking bible.

The thing is, either you are going to be a bible literalist, or you are going to have to realize that you can't selectively apply the bible because you don't like people.

Pretty simple, no?

Now prove he provide this service to someone he knew would be unfaithful and I will agree with you. Unless you can, then you are simply wrong

I kind of don't have to. The very fact that he provides services to other people who are in violation of bible law is the problem.

No, they should be allowed to do business while conforming to church teachings

So if they determine that their INTERPRETATION of Church Teaching (because it wasn't like he called the pastor to get a ruling here) means they don't have to follow the health codes, that's cool, too?

Sorry, man, religion should not be a "Get out of jail free card".

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

 

[JoeB131]

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

"a women"? Seriously, dude, where did you learn to write English?

Not even a comparable case, since they were discriminating based on what they wanted, not who they were. Now, if they were writing funny messages on cakes for other people, but were discriminating against this woman because she was gay, black, had one leg, whatever, then, yes, that would be illegal.

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Quite right. It really depends on how much money they want to shake out of you to get 'forgiveness".

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

No, when he runs a public accommodation, he has to follow the law, that's the point.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

Except, of course, he doesn't ask. Nor does he really do a background check on the grace status of straight customers. That's why it's against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in that state.

 

[Pop23]

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

"a women"? Seriously, dude, where did you learn to write English?

Not even a comparable case, since they were discriminating based on what they wanted, not who they were. Now, if they were writing funny messages on cakes for other people, but were discriminating against this woman because she was gay, black, had one leg, whatever, then, yes, that would be illegal.

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Quite right. It really depends on how much money they want to shake out of you to get 'forgiveness".

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

No, when he runs a public accommodation, he has to follow the law, that's the point.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

Except, of course, he doesn't ask. Nor does he really do a background check on the grace status of straight customers. That's why it's against the law to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in that state.

He wouldn't need to with gay couples, and that's not the point. He should have the right, and unless you can prove he supplied cake to someone he KNEW would sin, then your deflection fails.

 

[Silhouette]

Not even a comparable case, since they were discriminating based on what they wanted, not who they were.

LGBT etc. etc. are no more 'are' or 'were' than polygamists, drug addicts or bulimics. All behaviors which have a label, but not a static identity. Sorry. You're going to find out your false premise is going to get a closer look this time. Say hi to Anne Heche for me.

 

[JoeB131]

He wouldn't need to with gay couples, and that's not the point. He should have the right, and unless you can prove he supplied cake to someone he KNEW would sin, then your deflection fails.

NOt a deflection at all. Either he has to discriminate against ALL sinners, or he has to serve all sinners. Can't have it both ways.

Shit, he needs to do a virgin check on all those ladies.

LGBT etc. etc. are no more 'are' or 'were' than polygamists, drug addicts or bulimics. All behaviors which have a label, but not a static identity. Sorry. You're going to find out your false premise is going to get a closer look this time. Say hi to Anne Heche for me.

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"? (That assumes you really are straight and not a self-hating gay person like most homophobes.)

 

[rightwinger]

... the Kleins, once they were informed they were in clear violation of the law, could have either apologized or actually do the service they promised.

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture using the vehicle of marriage or adoption or education.

My favorite part of this are those that say they can't deny anyone if they serve adulterers.

Most religions believe in forgiveness as long as those asking do not intend to keep sinning.

If one enters the institution intending to be loyal to the spouse, then the Baker is following religious norms. If the religion the Baker follows preaches that Gay sex is a sin, he would be supplying the product to someone who outwardly intends to sin.

Far different.

What about atheists?
They are not asking forgiveness and still get cakes

If an atheist answered the question in the same manner, then the Baker should have the same right of refusal. I don't see the problem.

Yet there are more atheists than gays and I have yet to see a story of ANY baker refusing to bake a cake for an atheist

 

[rightwinger]

Word walls won't help you. Most christian churches believe in redemption. And if the Baker asked the question to someone he knew was previously married, do you intend to be faithful and they answered no, he should have the same right to refuse service to them as he should with gay couples who are obviously intending to sin.

Why would a baker ask that question at all? You see the problem here, buddy. The fact he committed adultery- according to the Bible - is that they should be stoned to death. It's right there in the fucking bible.

The thing is, either you are going to be a bible literalist, or you are going to have to realize that you can't selectively apply the bible because you don't like people.

Pretty simple, no?

Now prove he provide this service to someone he knew would be unfaithful and I will agree with you. Unless you can, then you are simply wrong

I kind of don't have to. The very fact that he provides services to other people who are in violation of bible law is the problem.

No, they should be allowed to do business while conforming to church teachings

So if they determine that their INTERPRETATION of Church Teaching (because it wasn't like he called the pastor to get a ruling here) means they don't have to follow the health codes, that's cool, too?

Sorry, man, religion should not be a "Get out of jail free card".

No, not simple at all. Different religions look at redemption differently.

Why would he ask is his business, not yours.

Can you prove that the Baker KNOWINGLY supplied a cake to heterosexual couple who intended to SIN? If you can, then you have a case. If you can't, you can't claim he's being hypocritical and excluding the gay couple for any other reason except he is unwilling to supply product to those who intend to sin.

If a women came in to get a cake for her boyfriend who is being released from prison for bank robbery and the lady said she wanted him to add "hope you don't get caught with the next Bank Robbery that you've already planned", should the Baker be allowed to refuse service?

Nobody can know intent

But they do know what has already occurred. A known adulterer getting married is an abomination

No cake for you!

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, buddy, it's been proven that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

When did you "decide" to be "Straight"?

Being straight and wanting to hump the opposite sex comes with pheremones. Gays have these urges tampered with at an early age and are imprinted in a deviant direction. Much like the desire to use pain pills turning into a full blown "no choice" opioid or heroin addiction. It's behavioral. But from the addict's viewpoint it seems uncontrollable and innate. The distinction may not seem important to you. But it will become important when it's exposed that addictive deviant sex behaviors don't have Constitutional rights to suppress Christian's 1st Amendment rights.

I offer the following quote to illustrate how you are wrong. It comes from the Mayo Clinic. You know, that shabby little non-credible outfit..

http://www.drryanhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

*******
One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abused abusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place

*****
And 2005's Psychology Today article using CDC statistics of a study of around 3,000 gay men:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

*****

Now, put the two together.

 

[rightwinger]

How can a so called "Christian Baker" participate in the wedding of two atheists knowing they will have children and raise them without God?

Makes you question their sincerity

 

[Syriusly]

... the Kleins, once they were informed they were in clear violation of the law, could have either apologized or actually do the service they promised.

Impossible. The Kleins are forbiddenen to do so from fear of eternal damnation for aiding the spread of homosexual culture.

While I can't claim to know what the Klein's believe- certainly they could believe that- even though the Bible says no such thing- and even though the Bible tells them to obey the law- the vast majority of Christians have no problem providing service to gay couples.