Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[Quantum Windbag]

Neat..bible doesnt make our laws nor is it the law.

Feel free to point that out to the idiots that try to use it that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope...even the bible makes it clear that it was over inhospitality. But the bible also thought it was ok for Lot to hand over his virgin daughters so the crowd would leave him alone.

I'm all too familiar with shit stains like you who falsely claim chapter and verse somehow proves there is no Lord. But we all know what you'll do if you or a family member is in a 70mph ambulance ride to a hospital. You'll punk out and beg for His forgiveness....and you'll maybe get it and then a month later deny you prayed and that He had nothing to do with keeping your miserable ass alive. You know what you are and so does everybody who reads what you say here. I can't insult you more than you insult yourself time after time.

No one claimed atheism. No one is denying the existence of God. If your particular lessons learned include ridicule and disdain for those with a different interpretation of scripture, can you still claim to hold a pure faith?

The issue is the refusal of the baker to provide the typical services he normally provides, i.e. baking a wedding cake.

Does he have to attend the wedding? No! Does he have to bring a toaster oven or blender as a wedding gift? No! He just has to provide the services he is in business to provide. How could he know that other couples aren't entering marriage with what he might consider sinful motives? His place is not to judge. His place is to provide normal, everyday services to the public. If his shop is open to the public, he must serve the public. He cannot hide behind the skirts of Christianity to justify refusal of services he normally renders.

And Boedeca is right. The Bible does not constitute the laws of this land. While the Bible is full of divine teachings, beautiful poetry, spiritual guidance and well learned life lessons, it is not a code of regulations enforceable by state authority. Nor is it a biology text book, a geology textbook, an anthropology text book or an astronomy text book.

If wedding cakes were a typical service, and not a special order service, you could walk in and buy one off the shelf anytime you wanted. Believe it or not, you can't even do that at Safeway.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What gets me here is that gay couples are all of a sudden singling out Christian establishments to force them to comply with their way of life. I have the reasoning that you should serve who you want, when you want. It would be wrong of me to force myself and my ways upon a gay baker if he/she refused me service. Frankly, I wouldn't be that spiteful to tell the truth.

I mean seriously, there were other bakeries to choose from who would have had no qualms about making them a cake.

 

[koshergrl]

The homo lobby has been all about shutting down Christian churches and having the bible declared "hate speech" from waaaayyyyy back.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one claimed atheism. No one is denying the existence of God. If your particular lessons learned include ridicule and disdain for those with a different interpretation of scripture, can you still claim to hold a pure faith?

The issue is the refusal of the baker to provide the typical services he normally provides, i.e. baking a wedding cake.

Does he have to attend the wedding? No! Does he have to bring a toaster oven or blender as a wedding gift? No! He just has to provide the services he is in business to provide. How could he know that other couples aren't entering marriage with what he might consider sinful motives? His place is not to judge. His place is to provide normal, everyday services to the public. If his shop is open to the public, he must serve the public. He cannot hide behind the skirts of Christianity to justify refusal of services he normally renders.

And Boedeca is right. The Bible does not constitute the laws of this land. While the Bible is full of divine teachings, beautiful poetry, spiritual guidance and well learned life lessons, it is not a code of regulations enforceable by state authority. Nor is it a biology text book, a geology textbook, an anthropology text book or an astronomy text book.

Thanks for the recap....your version of it complete with conclusions I didn't make. The "gay" wedding and the baker are already long gone in this conversation. A business owner should have no objections to any customer with green cash. A Christian business owner who walks his talk should not be subjected to customers who's moral compass is covered in excrement. Big deal....a judge says he was wrong....who's judge? Some leftist appointee who may suck dicks himself? The baker was right, the queers were just crying for attention...and they got it and the Christian got got. That's the way this culture is going these days. The correction will be FIERCE...you best decide which side of what's coming you'll be on.

Do you know what homosexuals want? Tolerance. And tolerance does not mean acceptance. Homosexuals also want simple human respect.

You can go all machismo and slam 'queers' saying they have no moral compass. You can accuse judges of something they are not just to soothe your personal homophobia. But try a little basic human respect on to see how it fits. You are not going to become Gay. You are not going to offend God. You are not going to be diminished in the eyes of your comrades. You are going to experience the Golden Rule first hand. Treat others as you would have others treat you.

You are far from perfect, as am I. But neither you nor I have the capacity to judge others when their actions have no impact on our personal lives. Nothing a homosexual has ever done has had any direct effect on my personal life. Live and let live. It's not just a slogan, it's a lesson learned by the people who are the most at peace with themselves and their Lord.

I have a lot more respect for homosexuals that you do. The evidence of that is pretty clear, I am not the one that is trying to argue that they have no free will, no ability to think for themselves,. and no choice in who, or what, they are. If you really want to deliver them the respect you think they deserve, stop using lies to justify your treatment of them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The cake shop cannot discriminate. That's just life. It's like owning a restaurant and not allowing gays to dine in your restaurant. That is discriminatory.

Since when are bakeries forced to produce pastries for anyone who demands them?

Well, first, since there have been bakeries operating under a Capitalist system.

Odd you should use words like 'forced'. Aren't bakeries in the business of baking? Did anyone threaten personal harm or property damage at the bakery if a cake is not baked? Hyperbole is the safe harbor for weak arguments. Yours is lashed to the pier with steel cables.

What is really odd that you think government control of markets and production, AKA fascism, is capitalism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Neat..bible doesnt make our laws nor is it the law.

So our laws against theft, murder, parental treatment, adultery, polygamy and etc. are based off of what? The Magna Carta? For what template did our forefathers use to craft our laws? Hmm?

 

[koshergrl]

Since when are bakeries forced to produce pastries for anyone who demands them?

Well, first, since there have been bakeries operating under a Capitalist system.

Odd you should use words like 'forced'. Aren't bakeries in the business of baking? Did anyone threaten personal harm or property damage at the bakery if a cake is not baked? Hyperbole is the safe harbor for weak arguments. Yours is lashed to the pier with steel cables.

What is really odd that you think government control of markets and production, AKA fascism, is capitalism.

Isn't it though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, first, since there have been bakeries operating under a Capitalist system.

Odd you should use words like 'forced'. Aren't bakeries in the business of baking? Did anyone threaten personal harm or property damage at the bakery if a cake is not baked? Hyperbole is the safe harbor for weak arguments. Yours is lashed to the pier with steel cables.

Forced is the correct word. They were forced to provide a service and a product to someone they did not wish to serve or produce for.

A capitalist system does not work under the premise that people are forced to work for people they don't want to work for. Quite the opposite.

A bakery/catering business is essentially a matter of contracts...the baker contracts with the buyers. They tell him what they want, he tells them if he'll make it, and if he makes it, for how much.

It isn't a matter of someone marching up and telling the baker "You'll make this for me."

They were not forced to be in the cake making business. It is the business owners job and duty to know the regulations and laws that govern what their business is obligated to follow. When they obtain a business license they have access to all those rules and laws. They make an agreement with the state, sometimes the county and sometimes the town to follow those regulations and laws. The key point is that by obtaining the license they agree to follow the laws. They do not have the right to arbitrarily alter the agreement they made with the licensing authority(s). If they don't like the rules and laws they have three choices, follow them even though they don't like them, ignore the rules and laws they don't like and suffer the consequences if and when caught, or, don't enter into the business to start with.

Were you forced to type that at gunpoint? I am just asking because I find it hard to believe that any rational person would type drivel like that voluntarily.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They were not forced to be in the cake making business. It is the business owners job and duty to know the regulations and laws that govern what their business is obligated to follow. When they obtain a business license they have access to all those rules and laws. They make an agreement with the state, sometimes the county and sometimes the town to follow those regulations and laws. The key point is that by obtaining the license they agree to follow the laws. They do not have the right to arbitrarily alter the agreement they made with the licensing authority(s). If they don't like the rules and laws they have three choices, follow them even though they don't like them, ignore the rules and laws they don't like and suffer the consequences if and when caught, or, don't enter into the business to start with.

There's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law. If you were anything but a statist dink, you'd know many laws are on the books just to be on the books....nobody takes them seriously and they aren't enforced.....until a cop gets a wild hair to hassle somebody. I've had several business licenses....they deal with collecting sales tax not the laws in a particular burg. How about you STFU now.

Obviously you have never been in the food business. Cops don't inforce those regulations, inspectors from the licensing authority do. Many towns require a town license in addition to a state license. In my town if a complaint is made an inspector will show up the next day if the complaint deals with a safety violation. In my town a hand washing sink outside of the employee restroom, as a stand alone hand washing sink is an enforced regulation in any business dealing with food products. If a business's hand washing sink is not working, guess what, the business gets closed until it is repaired and re-inspected.

Tell me something, genius, who backs up the licensing authority if there is a problem?

Just in case you don't know, it is the people with guns, AKA police.

 

[manifold]

Of course it's a lie. Bode doesn't even pretend to be truthful, or knowledgeable. She just yaps incessantly. Her irrelevance makes her easy to ignore though.

who here is relevant in your expert opinion?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope...even the bible makes it clear that it was over inhospitality. But the bible also thought it was ok for Lot to hand over his virgin daughters so the crowd would leave him alone.

I'm all too familiar with shit stains like you who falsely claim chapter and verse somehow proves there is no Lord. But we all know what you'll do if you or a family member is in a 70mph ambulance ride to a hospital. You'll punk out and beg for His forgiveness....and you'll maybe get it and then a month later deny you prayed and that He had nothing to do with keeping your miserable ass alive. You know what you are and so does everybody who reads what you say here. I can't insult you more than you insult yourself time after time.

No one claimed atheism. No one is denying the existence of God. If your particular lessons learned include ridicule and disdain for those with a different interpretation of scripture, can you still claim to hold a pure faith?

The issue is the refusal of the baker to provide the typical services he normally provides, i.e. baking a wedding cake.

Does he have to attend the wedding? No! Does he have to bring a toaster oven or blender as a wedding gift? No! He just has to provide the services he is in business to provide. How could he know that other couples aren't entering marriage with what he might consider sinful motives? His place is not to judge. His place is to provide normal, everyday services to the public. If his shop is open to the public, he must serve the public. He cannot hide behind the skirts of Christianity to justify refusal of services he normally renders.

And Boedeca is right. The Bible does not constitute the laws of this land. While the Bible is full of divine teachings, beautiful poetry, spiritual guidance and well learned life lessons, it is not a code of regulations enforceable by state authority. Nor is it a biology text book, a geology textbook, an anthropology text book or an astronomy text book.

I would doubt the purity of faith of anyone who condones and/or encourages homosexuality. Yeah, you heard me. Anyone who is willing to set the doctrine of his faith aside to condone something it teaches against is not a true believer. I believe homosexuality goes against the divine order of what God himself put in place when he created mankind. I exercise tolerance, not encouragement. Secondly, the baker gave them a choice to buy an already made cake off the shelf, so in essence, he was not denying anybody anything. He refused to make a cake, but he offered to sell them one.

You use very paltry justifications to deny someone their right to practice their faith things such as quote "The Bible does not constitute the laws of this land. While the Bible is full of divine teachings, beautiful poetry, spiritual guidance and well learned life lessons, it is not a code of regulations enforceable by state authority. Nor is it a biology text book, a geology textbook, an anthropology text book or an astronomy text book." End quote.

So, if a gay couple were put in this situation, what would be your response?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gakes, gay cakes.

Judge orders bakeshop to serve same-sex customers after owner REFUSED to make rainbow wedding cake for gay couple | Mail Online

I am amazed to live in a country where a judge can order a business to make a cake for a gay couple, which is optional, but cannot order government to follow the Constitution which is a contractual agreement.

With cases like this, or the AZ immigration bill, it seems people have "no problem" enforcing Constitutional principles for one party's sake at the expense of the equal rights of the other.

But when it comes to the other way, then all this justification comes up as to why the group is 'wrong' that is seeking equal Constitutional protections.

Just insanity. Don't know whether to laugh at how utterly ridiculous this is getting, or go cry with Victoria Jackson and others who weep for America.

I'm glad I have a sense of humor, but this really is horrible; and I am starting to feel bad for laughing at how truly sad the shape of our country is in.

I feel bad for both sides of these conflicts, and don't feel this is helping solve the issues by adding more injuries. People really deserve support to resolve differences directly, and keep all this nonsense we don't agree on OUT of government. The reason we can't resolve them is that they involve religious beliefs, so those will not change. Technically govt is not supposed to impose or establish one view over another, so this is not govt jurisdiction but belongs to the people to settle among ourselves and quit backlogging govt with the mess!

So sad. I have strong sympathies for all people who are NOT helped by these dilemma, where govt should NOT be abused to force one way or another, but to protect interests equally.
If anything, judges should order the people to resolve their conflicts and keep them OUT of courts and avoid public expense for their personal or religious conflicts that don't belong there.

No, it’s not ‘insanity,’ you simply don’t understand.

The issue concerns a Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating in the context of public accommodations. The judge is appropriately enforcing the laws of his state.

The state law also comports with Federal Constitutional case law, as the judge correctly noted in his opinion, where one’s religious beliefs cannot be used to excuse him when he violates a just law, and where forbidding discrimination concerning public accommodations is consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

It would have been an act of malfeasance on the part of the judge to rule otherwise.

The resolution to this is for business owners to conduct themselves professionally, and serve paying customers in a fair and consistent manner, as responsible business owners, and as responsible members of their communities.

 

[bodecea]

Of course it's a lie. Bode doesn't even pretend to be truthful, or knowledgeable. She just yaps incessantly. Her irrelevance makes her easy to ignore though.

Interesting comment considering that some people here cannot even stand to see truth about who they are....or were. Very Ironic, that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Public accommodation" should not come at the expense of religious freedom, Clayton. Pure and simple.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe homosexuality goes against the divine order of what God himself put in place when he created the mankind. I exercise tolerance, not encouragement.

You are entitled to that belief; you are not entitled, however, to seek to codify that belief. Nor does this belief excuse you from obeying the law.

Secondly, the baker gave them a choice to buy an already made cake off the shelf, so in essence, he was not denying anybody anything. He refused to make a cake, but he offered to sell them one.

You don’t understand.

An aspect of the business is to make cakes to order, public accommodations laws apply to both the selling of goods and services. What you advocate is a ‘separate but equal’ policy, which is just as illegal and un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Public accommodation" should not come at the expense of religious freedom, Clayton. Pure and simple.

It doesn’t.

No business owner is being disallowed practicing his faith, as no provision of Christian dogma disallows an adherent to sell good and services to same-sex couples, or to do so in any way jeopardizes the adherent’s salvation.

 

[Jughead]

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That’s ridiculous.

If one is unwilling to obey public accommodations laws, he simply wouldn’t open a business in the first place.



As an aside, your animus toward same-sex couples is both un-Constitutional and un-Christian.

Well, it is in conflict with my faith, and my faith supersedes all else, that is why I would go to jail instead of baking the cake. I have a right to not acknowledge gay marriage or homosexuality since I will not under any circumstance renounce my faith.

Looks like the owner of the bakery (Mr. Phillips) would rather go to jail than renounce his faith. I would do the same.

A Colorado bakery owner said he would rather go to jail than serve gay couples, despite an order to do so.

A judge ordered Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to “cease and desist from discriminating” against same-sex couples, despite Phillips’ religious beliefs. Judge Robert Spencer said Phillips discriminated against a couple last year “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

On Tuesday’s episode of Fox & Friends, Jack Phillips told host Elisabeth Hasselbeck that he didn’t plan on abandoning his beliefs because of the judge’s order.

Hasselbeck asked if Phillips believed he was acting within his Constitutional rights denying the couple. Phillips said he hadn’t thought about it at the time, but looking back, he would say that “the United States Constitution, as well as the Colorado constitution, both protect my right to practice my religious beliefs while I’m at my work.”

Hasselbeck also asked why it was important for Phillips to stand by his personal religious beliefs instead of just trying to make a buck. Phillips said he isn’t just trying to make money, but genuinely loves baking.

“I believe it’s what God’s designed for me to do, but I don’t believe that I need to drop my religious convictions at any time for any reason,” Phillips said.

Nicolle Martin, Phillips’ attorney, said, “If the government can force you to violate your beliefs under the threat of a jail sentence, there’s really no freedom they can’t take away, Elisabeth.”

Hasselbeck then asked if Phillips would be willing to go to jail for his beliefs.

“If that’s what it takes, I guess I would be,” he said. “I don’t plan on giving up my religious beliefs. It’s not like I chose this team or that team. It’s who I am, it’s what I believe.”

Colorado Bakery Owner Would Rather Go To Jail Than Serve Gay Couples

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Public accommodation" should not come at the expense of religious freedom, Clayton. Pure and simple.

It doesn’t.

No business owner is being disallowed practicing his faith, as no provision of Christian dogma disallows an adherent to sell good and services to same-sex couples, or to do so in any way jeopardizes the adherent’s salvation.

The fact you called that man's faith "Christian dogma" disqualifies your entire premise. Moreover, the Bible teaches us not to condone practices that dishonor or distance us from God. We are to preserve our devotion to him and his teachings, even it means denying service to someone that epitomizes the exact contradiction of what we believe in. I can certainly understand the logic behind his reasoning. He sees serving this couple as an allowance of what he sees as sinful. Therefore, he acted based on his religious beliefs, which is therefore in turn a practice of faith.

Forcing him to serve these people is akin to forcing him to condone something he cannot within his own conscience, do. Would you do this to a Muslim? Would you force him to sell something that isn't halal just because the law says so? Hmm? Your logic is flawed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I believe homosexuality goes against the divine order of what God himself put in place when he created the mankind. I exercise tolerance, not encouragement.

You are entitled to that belief; you are not entitled, however, to seek to codify that belief. Nor does this belief excuse you from obeying the law.

Secondly, the baker gave them a choice to buy an already made cake off the shelf, so in essence, he was not denying anybody anything. He refused to make a cake, but he offered to sell them one.

You don’t understand.

An aspect of the business is to make cakes to order, public accommodations laws apply to both the selling of goods and services. What you advocate is a ‘separate but equal’ policy, which is just as illegal and un-Constitutional.

If the law conflicts with God's will, I will rebel. That is what I have been taught, and that's what I'll do.

And what you don't understand is that he had cakes already made to order. The couple could have simply bought one already made off the shelf. Moreover, they could have simply gone somewhere else. Also, what does this have to do with segregation? Do you know anything about the separate but equal doctrine? Who is codifying anything? Are all your premises based on assumption and assertion? It is inherently unconstitutional to prevent a man from doing things to comply with his faith.