Christian baker not backing down after Gov't punishes him for refusing to make gay wedding cake

[Nosmo King]

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality isn't a characteristic at all. It is a BEHAVIOR.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[emilynghiem]

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality isn't a characteristic at all. It is a BEHAVIOR.

Hi @Tipstcatlover
How about being Muslim or Christian?
Is that behavior?
If people have freedom to express or exercise their faith without discrimination harassment or targeting, does this apply to freedom to express or practice one's beliefs in homosexuality or transgender identity?

Seriously, what would you say to the proposal to treat these as beliefs, which are faith based, someone's personal or spiritual choice, and not the business of govt either to establish or to prohibit, but the govt should remain neutral. And this may include beliefs that homosexuality is a choice of behavior (or not, which is faith based also) or that it is changeable or not (again, both approaches being faith based and a personal choice left to people, not govt to pick sides and enforce one belief over another ).

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality isn't a characteristic at all. It is a BEHAVIOR.

Hi @Tipstcatlover
How about being Muslim or Christian?
Is that behavior?
If people have freedom to express or exercise their faith without discrimination harassment or targeting, does this apply to freedom to express or practice one's beliefs in homosexuality or transgender identity?

Seriously, what would you say to the proposal to treat these as beliefs, which are faith based, someone's personal or spiritual choice, and not the business of govt either to establish or to prohibit, but the govt should remain neutral. And this may include beliefs that homosexuality is a choice of behavior (or not, which is faith based also) or that it is changeable or not (again, both approaches being faith based and a personal choice left to people, not govt to pick sides and enforce one belief over another ).

Being homosexual or transgender are not religious beliefs. There is no faith to them. They are behaviors. A man might fiercely believe he is a woman but this is not a spiritual belief. He could just as easily believe he is a dragon. A woman might firmly believe she is a cat. These are not beliefs that get protection.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Well Nosmo King
We've got a whole party called the Democrats led by leaders biased by beliefs, such as Obama and Pelosi, who discriminated against and penalized people for Constitutional beliefs violated by the ACA mandates and fines. People who believe in right to health care are imposing this policy that favors that belief about govt while penalizing excluding and violating beliefs of people who believe free market can provide more effective health care. Neither belief is proven, both are faith based, yet one gets exempted from taxes and the other gets punished with fines forcing people to either comply with mandates that violate Constitutional beliefs or get fined and forced to pay into that system of federalized health care that violates said beliefs.

That's discrimination by creed not to allow or to require equal choice in funding health care according to one's beliefs.

Discrimination is also going on with barring faith based beliefs in creation but not faith based beliefs in global warming from being pushed in public schools, policies, govt laws etc.

Same with targeting Christian expression of: crosses, nativity or Christmas references, etc because of "faith based" beliefs that aren't shared by all people but even opposed.

But if people object to:
gay parades , gay marriage or other homosexual references or policies (which are equally "faith based beliefs" ) then such people are bigots, treated with abuse and harassment, threatened with boycotts, and targeted for penalties and punishment by law.

Why should atheists and secular nontheists be allowed to discriminate and blame and badmouth Christians , even suing to remove Crosses or Bible from public property or display.

But people who dont believe in gay marriage or gay parades can't sue to keep that out of public policy or institutions?

Why is one side allowed to bash bully and discriminate against Christian beliefs and expression but not the other when it comes to beliefs and expression of homosexual and LGBT practices?

 

[emilynghiem]

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality isn't a characteristic at all. It is a BEHAVIOR.

Hi @Tipstcatlover
How about being Muslim or Christian?
Is that behavior?
If people have freedom to express or exercise their faith without discrimination harassment or targeting, does this apply to freedom to express or practice one's beliefs in homosexuality or transgender identity?

Seriously, what would you say to the proposal to treat these as beliefs, which are faith based, someone's personal or spiritual choice, and not the business of govt either to establish or to prohibit, but the govt should remain neutral. And this may include beliefs that homosexuality is a choice of behavior (or not, which is faith based also) or that it is changeable or not (again, both approaches being faith based and a personal choice left to people, not govt to pick sides and enforce one belief over another ).

Being homosexual or transgender are not religious beliefs. There is no faith to them. They are behaviors. A man might fiercely believe he is a woman but this is not a spiritual belief. He could just as easily believe he is a dragon. A woman might firmly believe she is a cat. These are not beliefs that get protection.

No Tipsycatlover
Identifying as a Christian is not the same as believing you are a supernatural being. One is their real spiritual identity or path in life, and cannot be compared with something imaginary. Those are two separate types of beliefs

Likewise, identifying as a transgender or homosexual person is part of their REAL spiritual process and is not make believe either. Even if they change or can change, this doesn't mean it isn't real.

You have the right to believe it is a behavioral choice. In some cases yes, it can change, so you are free to believe this is applies to all cases.

But because that's faith based, then other ppl have the equal right to believe it may not be changed or that people are born that way, which are equally faith based views.

Do you agree Tipsycatlover that the VIEWS of homosexuality are all FAITH based, both sides are, neither has been proven to be true in all cases.

So until a consensus is reached on proof of either side, govt should remain neutral and not endorse either side sbeliefs.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality isn't a characteristic at all. It is a BEHAVIOR.

Hi @Tipstcatlover
How about being Muslim or Christian?
Is that behavior?
If people have freedom to express or exercise their faith without discrimination harassment or targeting, does this apply to freedom to express or practice one's beliefs in homosexuality or transgender identity?

Seriously, what would you say to the proposal to treat these as beliefs, which are faith based, someone's personal or spiritual choice, and not the business of govt either to establish or to prohibit, but the govt should remain neutral. And this may include beliefs that homosexuality is a choice of behavior (or not, which is faith based also) or that it is changeable or not (again, both approaches being faith based and a personal choice left to people, not govt to pick sides and enforce one belief over another ).

Being homosexual or transgender are not religious beliefs. There is no faith to them. They are behaviors. A man might fiercely believe he is a woman but this is not a spiritual belief. He could just as easily believe he is a dragon. A woman might firmly believe she is a cat. These are not beliefs that get protection.

No Tipsycatlover
Identifying as a Christian is not the same as believing you are a supernatural being. One is their real spiritual identity or path in life, and cannot be compared with something imaginary. Those are two separate types of beliefs

Likewise, identifying as a transgender or homosexual person is part of their REAL spiritual process and is not make believe either. Even if they change or can change, this doesn't mean it isn't real.

You have the right to believe it is a behavioral choice. In some cases yes, it can change, so you are free to believe this is applies to all cases.

But because that's faith based, then other ppl have the equal right to believe it may not be changed or that people are born that way, which are equally faith based views.

Do you agree Tipsycatlover that the VIEWS of homosexuality are all FAITH based, both sides are, neither has been proven to be true in all cases.

So until a consensus is reached on proof of either side, govt should remain neutral and not endorse either side sbeliefs.

I think I kind of get what you mean by being a fag or tranny being part of one's 'spirtual' process....But I think that would apply more so to a tranny than a homo though. The tranny is confused of what sex they are...the butt pirate isn't, they know they like the same sex.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Identifying as a transgender or homosexual is not a spiritual process. It is an aberration. It is a mental illness.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Identifying as a transgender or homosexual is not a spiritual process. It is an aberration. It is a mental illness.

Well yeah, I'm just trying to give some thought to what Emily is saying. I tend to like reading her thoughts because they come off sincere. Whether I agree or disagree with them.

Faggotry and trannyism is filth, without a doubt.

 

[Picaro]

I think this cake issue is kind of similar to the lunch counter issues in the south back in the day. Whites wouldn't serve Blacks, but they eventually lost since the full force of the feds forced them to. Myself, I wouldn't want to eat anything that a food preparar had to make for me against his will. He might spit in it, or worse.

That was genuine discrimination against a real minority. Homosexuals aren't a real minority, they're just dysfunctional sex fetishists, and a mental and public health issue; not even remotely similar in my mind. They were denied all sorts of rights that citizens are granted by law, while homosexuals were never denied any rights for merely being homosexual fetishists.

 

[Picaro]

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Again, can the government ban Kosher or halal slaughter or not?

You keep not answering the question.

Your question should be: should the government regulate or punish the killing of animals. Of course they can, and I believe they should. Do you support pouching? Hunting deer at night with a light? Taking as many fish as possible, or would you abide by size and limit rules?

The crazy right wing is simple, as in simple minded, characterized by a lack of keen mental discernment and pragmatic judgments. They see a world of black and white, not colorful with different shades and hues.

Anyone who wants to see the world without colorful shades and hues has an absulute right to see the world anyway they wish. No one is taking any of your rights away.

No one is telling gays that they may not have a wedding cake. They need only find a willing contractual partner.

If the government can force someone into being an unwilling partner does the government see any limits on its power?

Government here has limits, or they did until Nov. 2016 when Ben Franklin's warning was not heeded (i.e. "you have a republic, if you can keep it"); these limits, checks and balances have been slowly dissolved by the two citizens united decisions, McConnell's failure to do his duty and Ryan's insistence in his ideology becoming the law of our land.

Nonsense; the first Republic died for good at Ft. Sumter. Everything since has been a barely contained anarchy, an inconsistent collection of legalisms, and no longer a nation.

 

[martybegan]

And that conveniently lets the side you like "win", and the side you don't like "lose". What you are proposing IS discrimination, but its done by government as your proxy, against people you don't like or understand (or care to understand) so you get to keep your hands clean and still get what you want. Meanwhile a couple is ruined and stopped from doing what they love to do simply over a wedding cake.

For some reason we rarely saw this with regards to race, because when it came to weddings most groups "stick to their own", so the issue never really came up. Plus you don't really see many white supremacists in the cake business, what you do see is plenty of religious people, and their rights are being curtailed in the name of "fairness" which is basically bullshit.

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

In a small town or a rural setting, if its the entire town doing it, then government can get involved. If its one baker of many, it just isn't justified to ruin them over butt hurt.

It's not up to you or government to decide a person's religious morals or codes, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt isn't compelling government interest.

 

[martybegan]

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

And forcing a baker to make a cake against his will might result in getting an inferior product.

Because that baker is so filled with fear, hate and suspicion that they would intentionally sabotage a wedding cake. Ah! But they're 'Christians', right? Ridiculous hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is only being in favor or rights and protecting those rights for people you like and agree with.

It's being a giant poseur.

 

[martybegan]

you really are retarded, or you are just not getting it. Halal and kosher BUTCHERING practices, not the food itself.

Can a Dept of health ban kosher or halal slaughter or not? what about a building department?

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Once again all you show is your desire to force your morals on others, and to use the government's guns to do it, like a sniveling bitch coward.

 

[martybegan]

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The Nazi's started the same shit closing down small Jewish business with bullshit like this. It is fascism plain and simple when they attempt to overtop another persons beliefs or principals. The only ones that gain are the corporations when all the small businesses are gone.

 

[martybegan]

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Actually that's exactly what it says, or do you think government should be able to force a Church to conduct a same sex marriage, or force a priest to do the same?

 

[JoeB131]

If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

Again, if your crazy religion requires you to not do something, you should find something else to do for a living.

But I am guessing this 'Christian" baker still baked cakes for

Women who wore braids
Women who wore jewelry
Women who wrote their own vows
Women who wear pants
Women were weren't virgins on their wedding nights
Women who've been married before
People with tattoos

In short, a whole list of behaviors that are prohibited in the Bible, but he has no issue with.

Stop using Jesus to defend your bigotry.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually that's exactly what it says, or do you think government should be able to force a Church to conduct a same sex marriage, or force a priest to do the same?

Works for me.

But in another 20 years, all the churches will be performing SSM, and all pretending they had nothing to do with the bigotry..

Kind of like they all pretend they had nothing to do with segregation.

 

[JoeB131]

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The Nazi's started the same shit closing down small Jewish business with bullshit like this. It is fascism plain and simple when they attempt to overtop another persons beliefs or principals. The only ones that gain are the corporations when all the small businesses are gone.

Marty, stop showing us your pinup posters.

 

[martybegan]

Actually that's exactly what it says, or do you think government should be able to force a Church to conduct a same sex marriage, or force a priest to do the same?

Works for me.

But in another 20 years, all the churches will be performing SSM, and all pretending they had nothing to do with the bigotry..

Kind of like they all pretend they had nothing to do with segregation.

Fascist dickwad.

 

[martybegan]

Dear Nosmo King
Anyone can buy or order a cake.
But you can't force people to deliver or participate in an activity like SERVE the cake at a function that is against their beliefs.
You can't force people to decorate or make any statement that becomes " forced speech" and punishing people for
their freedom of choice in spoken or artistic expression.

Yes courts have actually ruled in favor of forcing expression,
forcing photographers or bakers, forcing venues to shut down their wedding services
if they weren't going to offer them to ALL such "wedding events"

I DISAGREE and do not consider all these weddings to be equal events you can FORCE
someone to serve or participate in.

As part of religious free exercise, the PARTICIPANTS have the right and choice to express and practice as they wish; but they can't force OTHERS to engage in their religious rituals!

I support Constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to host one type
of event but refuse another by their own personal discretion.

I argue my "beliefs as a Constitutionalist" qualify as a religious belief
and are barred from punishment by govt. And I say the same for
these other people with BELIEFS in Constitutional limits on govt.

This isn't done being challenged.

In the end, I suspect that the argument for mediation to protect beliefs on both sides
is the more logical, fair and Constitutional ethical solution. So that is what I am going to argue for.

I can't speak for others. If they want to impose their beliefs OVER the others, both sides
are imposing if they do that. I believe that is damaging to both sides, to impose one over the other.

So I am asking differently: I am asking for both sides
to respect the beliefs of the other and refrain from imposing on each other.
Equal respect, equal protection of the laws.
That's a personal choice, and I hope others will choose to rise above and
decide to respect each other's beliefs regardless how much we may disagree.

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

Freedom of speech ( which includes the freedom to protest) and freedom of religion are covered by the same amendment. Apparently people loose these freedoms when they open a business.

The Nazi's started the same shit closing down small Jewish business with bullshit like this. It is fascism plain and simple when they attempt to overtop another persons beliefs or principals. The only ones that gain are the corporations when all the small businesses are gone.

Marty, stop showing us your pinup posters.

you have far more in common with the snippy mustached asshole than I do, by a long margin. You advocate government force against those who disagree with you politically. That is the quintessential definition of fascism.