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

[emilynghiem]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
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.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is the value I learned in Catechism from the Nuns. It seems the baker in this situation and Hobby Lobby owners for example, are faux Christians - they go to church, wear the cross of Christianity but have been infected with hate, not the love of Christ's Gospel.

Another self proclaim authority on biblical hate. Where does it say to go along with the sin? It doesn't. If someone came in to celebrate his mistress do you think the baker is Christian enough if he refuses? The faux Christians are the ones that call men on Earth father.

Good point Iceweasel
And I would agree that with objections to gay marriage, it makes sense that ALL adulterers (gay or straight)
should be refused also if you are going to go there.

However, by religious freedom, Govt cannot be abused to force people HOW to follow their own
religion and either "forgive everyone" if that's what you are asking. Either forgive nobody equally, and hold them ALL to the letter of the law; or forgive everyone if you are going to forgive heterosexual adulterers. That's not Govt's job to police religious exercise.

It's up to PEOPLE to decide how they want to believe and practice their beliefs IN PRIVATE.

The problem with public accommodations laws is taking PRIVATE beliefs and practices
and injecting and mixing them with public laws and govt.

Since private religious and personal decisions are involved, if I were govt officials,
I would require that businesses and clients sign WAIVERS in advance to resolve
all such conflicts by consensus satisfactory to both parties and respecting their beliefs equally.
And if no such agreement can be reached, BOTH SIDES are barred from doing business together.

That way the govt isn't blaming one sides' beliefs more than the other, but the fact
they can't resolve them is nobody's fault. They should just agree not to do business together,
so nobody's rights or beliefs are violated, and nobody feels compelled to change their beliefs against their will.

That's what I recommend to protect equal rights and beliefs of both sides and all parties UNDER LAW.

Both people with beliefs for or against gay marriage should be treated equally by govt which should remain NEUTRAL and not take sides, and endorse "one belief over another" when these are PRIVATE and should be treated as equal choices to be kept IN PRIVATE. It is not ANYONE'S business to take private beliefs and drag them into courts or drag govt into these disputes. so if these interactions remain PRIVATE then everyone is protected from govt intrusion into personal beliefs and choices that belong to individuals.

Businesses that are affected by such conflicts should require Arbitration or Mediation WAIVERS to prevent lawsuits: Either agree in advance how to conduct business together, or refrain and go find more compatible business partners and customers!!

 

[Picaro]

I don't have to work for anybody if I don't want to.

If they could force me to, that would be called "slavery".

Either you agree to do the work for x amount of dollars or you don't.

If you have a public service and PA laws are in effect, either you follow the law or get another business or job.

It isn't a 'public service', it's a privately owned and operated bakery. You're one of the dumbest trolls here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?

You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.

Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.

Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?

And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.

The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.

You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if all such customers get the same answer NO I don't do gay weddings.

In my most humble opinion this ^^^ post is hyperbole on a foundation of the absurd. The issue is the baking of a cake; gay people seeking to marry are not dogs and your fantasy about weddings becoming sex parties is silly.

By the way, "It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if all such customers get the same answer"; so you support a right to deny service to all people of color, all left-handed people, the aged and atheists?

Civil Rights do not provide a right to discriminate. It is really that simple. A dress code would be fine, "no shirt, no shoes, no service", has merit, as did men and boys with long hair denied entry into Disneyland in the dark ages - both can be remedied, putting on shoes or getting a hair cut; sexual orientation, one's color or ethnicity or age cannot.

 

[Picaro]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
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.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is the value I learned in Catechism from the Nuns. It seems the baker in this situation and Hobby Lobby owners for example, are faux Christians - they go to church, wear the cross of Christianity but have been infected with hate, not the love of Christ's Gospel.

Another self proclaim authority on biblical hate. Where does it say to go along with the sin? It doesn't. If someone came in to celebrate his mistress do you think the baker is Christian enough if he refuses? The faux Christians are the ones that call men on Earth father.

"biblical hate"?? I'm no authority on spirits, ghosts - even holy ones - I do understand clearly that sentence which lead my post above.

It is a practice a callous conservative abhors, those people who believe "I got mine, fuck the rest of you", in short today's conservative movement.

In short you cannot think, period. I asked you a simple question based on your simple understanding and you avoided it like the plague.

Of course he did. He didn't have a pre-prepared response handed to him.

Jake never had any male guidance in his early years, his only male attention comes from this board, so he makes up stupid crap just to get some attention. He's very lonely, and he thinks that if the Gay Rights hoax can be sold to so many sociopaths and half-wits, then he will be able to marry his new puppy in a few more years, his only friend and companion. He's just following his dream here, that's all.

 

[Iceweasel]

The problem with public accommodations laws is taking PRIVATE beliefs and practices
and injecting and mixing them with public laws and govt.

Since private religious and personal decisions are involved, if I were govt officials,
I would require that businesses and clients sign WAIVERS in advance to resolve
all such conflicts by consensus satisfactory to both parties and respecting their beliefs equally.
And if no such agreement can be reached, BOTH SIDES are barred from doing business together.

That way the govt isn't blaming one sides' beliefs more than the other, but the fact
they can't resolve them is nobody's fault. They should just agree not to do business together,
so nobody's rights or beliefs are violated, and nobody feels compelled to change their beliefs against their will.

That's what I recommend to protect equal rights and beliefs of both sides and all parties.
Either agree how to conduct business together, or refrain and go find more compatible business partners and customers!!

But we already have religious freedom enumerated in the Constitution. Jews should not be forced to bake Muslim cakes. The problem is the government IS getting involved between two private parties. More government is not the solution.

I think few people would have a problem with PA laws protecting race and religion for food and housing. Every citizen has to eat and have a place to stay. But it's become a political bludgeon to forward an agenda.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem with public accommodations laws is taking PRIVATE beliefs and practices
and injecting and mixing them with public laws and govt.

Since private religious and personal decisions are involved, if I were govt officials,
I would require that businesses and clients sign WAIVERS in advance to resolve
all such conflicts by consensus satisfactory to both parties and respecting their beliefs equally.
And if no such agreement can be reached, BOTH SIDES are barred from doing business together.

That way the govt isn't blaming one sides' beliefs more than the other, but the fact
they can't resolve them is nobody's fault. They should just agree not to do business together,
so nobody's rights or beliefs are violated, and nobody feels compelled to change their beliefs against their will.

That's what I recommend to protect equal rights and beliefs of both sides and all parties.
Either agree how to conduct business together, or refrain and go find more compatible business partners and customers!!

But we already have religious freedom enumerated in the Constitution. Jews should not be forced to bake Muslim cakes. The problem is the government IS getting involved between two private parties. More government is not the solution.

I think few people would have a problem with PA laws protecting race and religion for food and housing. Every citizen has to eat and have a place to stay. But it's become a political bludgeon to forward an agenda.

Totally agree Iceweasel
if businesses affected by this start requiring waivers to be signed in advance,
then legally they can require that customers abide by arbitration or mediation
TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITHOUT LEGAL ACTION OR EXPENSE.
And if they don't meet that requirement, they don't do business together at all.
That would keep govt out of it, don't you agree?

 

[MindWars]

 

[Picaro]

For the curious, here's a pic of Jake's future 'bride'. he's even shopped for the gown and everything already, but don't let this mislead anybody; Jake is not the 'male' in this relationship:

 

[emilynghiem]

Since antifa can get away with terrorism, I hope to see an antifaggot movement that beats the soddies back into the closet.

Dear OffensivelyOpenMinded and martybegan
While I totally agree with you that the liberal LGBT advocates are abusing govt unconstitutionally
to take sides and defend one belief while penalizing another, which to me is clearly unlawful,
both of your delivery merely ADDS fuel to the fire -- and is the reason these liberals cry VICTIM
and use that MEANNESS to scream they need govt protection.

You risk fueling and backing their whole argument of "SEE we are threatened and abused.
We suffer harassment if govt doesn't step in like they did to address BLACK discrimination"

The more you and others LAY OFF the attacks, and just stick to Constitutional arguments THOSE MIGHT WIN.

But the more you harass and abuse, that's the very justification behind asking govt help to intervene.
"Because of the need of protection from abuse, harassment and discrimination against LGBT"

QUIT FEEDING THE VICTIMS!
QUIT GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANT which is proof of abuse and need for govt protections!

By all means, OOM and MB, keep fighting the good fight by enforcing CONSTITUTIONAL principles at stake here. That way we all win where equal protections are enforced to stop abuses.

But direct the arguments and attention THERE where we can WIN.
Don't flame the flamers or you get us all burned.

 

[Nosmo King]

I have been a Christian for 60 years and never has my minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Where did this hatful dogma come from? Are these 'Christian' bakers just twisting a beautiful loving and forgiving faith to serve a vile purpose? And seeking legal cover for their vile purpose, aren't they twisting an open and inclusive set of laws?

You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.

Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.

Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?

And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.

The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.

You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake doesn't realize that PA does not mean "any time money changes hands", which is how idiots like him want to define it.

The scope of Public Accommodation laws though is defined by the State Legislature and what businesses (typically for profit) to which it applies. That you may not agree with how the Legislature defines Public Accommodation laws does not change the application of the law within the jurisdiction of that State law.


>>>>

PA laws don't trump 1st Amendment religious freedom laws at all; that's just some sociopath judge pandering to his political cronies and no 'law' can abridge it legally. If you want everyone to make up their own laws and how and when they should be enforced then don't be whining when the tables turn and you get tossed off a building because some Muslim judge declared it legal.

Take it up with the state lege, boyo. The legislature passes those laws, and, yes, they are constitutional.

What priests, pastors, ministers, reverends, etc., say "don't do business with homos?"

Really, are there any clergy who do that?

 

[Iceweasel]

The problem with public accommodations laws is taking PRIVATE beliefs and practices
and injecting and mixing them with public laws and govt.

Since private religious and personal decisions are involved, if I were govt officials,
I would require that businesses and clients sign WAIVERS in advance to resolve
all such conflicts by consensus satisfactory to both parties and respecting their beliefs equally.
And if no such agreement can be reached, BOTH SIDES are barred from doing business together.

That way the govt isn't blaming one sides' beliefs more than the other, but the fact
they can't resolve them is nobody's fault. They should just agree not to do business together,
so nobody's rights or beliefs are violated, and nobody feels compelled to change their beliefs against their will.

That's what I recommend to protect equal rights and beliefs of both sides and all parties.
Either agree how to conduct business together, or refrain and go find more compatible business partners and customers!!

But we already have religious freedom enumerated in the Constitution. Jews should not be forced to bake Muslim cakes. The problem is the government IS getting involved between two private parties. More government is not the solution.

I think few people would have a problem with PA laws protecting race and religion for food and housing. Every citizen has to eat and have a place to stay. But it's become a political bludgeon to forward an agenda.

Totally agree Iceweasel
if businesses affected by this start requiring waivers to be signed in advance,
then legally they can require that customers abide by arbitration or mediation
TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITHOUT LEGAL ACTION OR EXPENSE.
And if they don't meet that requirement, they don't do business together at all.
That would keep govt out of it, don't you agree?

Well arbitration with no legal clout seems meaningless to me. Someone goes away unsatisfied. I've been in businesses that didn't seem to care for my money or company. I just left and didn't go back. I never felt the need to voice a complaint or get government involved. But that's just me.

 

[Picaro]

You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.

Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.

Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?

And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.

The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.

You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
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.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is the value I learned in Catechism from the Nuns. It seems the baker in this situation and Hobby Lobby owners for example, are faux Christians - they go to church, wear the cross of Christianity but have been infected with hate, not the love of Christ's Gospel.

So when you leftist filth bags push to punish those who don't follow your line...YOU should expect the same when the tables are turned? Glad to hear that.

 

[Picaro]

The problem with public accommodations laws is taking PRIVATE beliefs and practices
and injecting and mixing them with public laws and govt.

Since private religious and personal decisions are involved, if I were govt officials,
I would require that businesses and clients sign WAIVERS in advance to resolve
all such conflicts by consensus satisfactory to both parties and respecting their beliefs equally.
And if no such agreement can be reached, BOTH SIDES are barred from doing business together.

That way the govt isn't blaming one sides' beliefs more than the other, but the fact
they can't resolve them is nobody's fault. They should just agree not to do business together,
so nobody's rights or beliefs are violated, and nobody feels compelled to change their beliefs against their will.

That's what I recommend to protect equal rights and beliefs of both sides and all parties.
Either agree how to conduct business together, or refrain and go find more compatible business partners and customers!!

But we already have religious freedom enumerated in the Constitution. Jews should not be forced to bake Muslim cakes. The problem is the government IS getting involved between two private parties. More government is not the solution.

I think few people would have a problem with PA laws protecting race and religion for food and housing. Every citizen has to eat and have a place to stay. But it's become a political bludgeon to forward an agenda.

Totally agree Iceweasel
if businesses affected by this start requiring waivers to be signed in advance,
then legally they can require that customers abide by arbitration or mediation
TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITHOUT LEGAL ACTION OR EXPENSE.
And if they don't meet that requirement, they don't do business together at all.
That would keep govt out of it, don't you agree?

Well arbitration with no legal clout seems meaningless to me. Someone goes away unsatisfied. I've been in businesses that didn't seem to care for my money or company. I just left and didn't go back. I never felt the need to voice a complaint or get government involved. But that's just me.

They look around and find Christian businesses to target with their fascist crap. There probably isn't even a wedding scheduled in the first place.

 

[emilynghiem]

You can't label hate for others, that in itself is hateful. Nobody says it's hateful but leftists. Your congregation is not god, it's filled with flawed humans.

Christians, oddly enough, get the idea from the bible. It labels certain things as sinful so forcing a Christian to accommodate a sinful relationship is wrongheaded and a disgrace to our system of justice. Leftists are trying to destroy individual freedoms every where they can.

Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?

And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.

The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.

You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Dear Nosmo King
1. the cases that I am referring to required things like
a. decorations or messages that the baker did not feel they wanted to render because it violated their conscience
(one baker left the cake blank and offered to give the supplies to the customer to write whatever they wanted)
b. attending gay wedding events in order to serve the cake or to take photographs

2. because this crosses the line and is hard to police
that's why I recommend mediation and consensus where it is worked out
between business and customers. And if they can't agree, then they should
have a clause in their contract severing business relations and canceling the contract
"to prevent legal action and expenses"

Weddings and photography are so sensitive, it makes sense that people
should pick someone they have rapport with anyway.

Personally, I would even offer to mediate all such conflicts and cases for FREE
just to make sure people get what they want the right way, without compromising anyone's beliefs.
Very sad if people feel they need to politicize this issue at the expense of each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
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.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is the value I learned in Catechism from the Nuns. It seems the baker in this situation and Hobby Lobby owners for example, are faux Christians - they go to church, wear the cross of Christianity but have been infected with hate, not the love of Christ's Gospel.

So when you leftist filth bags push to punish those who don't follow your line...YOU should expect the same when the tables are turned? Glad to hear that.

Dear OffensivelyOpenMinded and Wry Catcher
Sadly that's exactly what has been happening.
both sides persecute, harass and politically hang and punish each other over differences in beliefs.
Two wrongs don't make anything right.
At some point we will learn a better way, but both sides have to suffer the same consequences
to learn this approach doesn't work. Retribution feeds on itself and becomes self-destructive
to both sides that both lose. Just like war, it's a phase people go through to defend
their turf. Until we learn to manage conflicts and diverse groups more civilly. We will learn, eventually, but at what cost?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
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.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is the value I learned in Catechism from the Nuns. It seems the baker in this situation and Hobby Lobby owners for example, are faux Christians - they go to church, wear the cross of Christianity but have been infected with hate, not the love of Christ's Gospel.

So when you leftist filth bags push to punish those who don't follow your line...YOU should expect the same when the tables are turned? Glad to hear that.

Dear OffensivelyOpenMinded and Wry Catcher
Sadly that's exactly what has been happening.
both sides persecute, harass and politically hang and punish each other over differences in beliefs.
Two wrongs don't make anything right.
At some point we will learn a better way, but both sides have to suffer the same consequences
to learn this approach doesn't work. Retribution feeds on itself and becomes self-destructive
to both sides that both lose. Just like war, it's a phase people go through to defend
their turf. Until we learn to manage conflicts and diverse groups more civilly. We will learn, eventually, but at what cost?

The cost will be lives. Sad as it may be.

 

[Nosmo King]

Such discrimination brings unnecessary humiliation and grief. It brings a status of second class citizenship. These things are legitimately perceived as hateful. What else could it be?

And these 'Christians' use that faith to serve a purpose it was never intended to serve. And the law was never intended to serve as cover for such behavior.

The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.

You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

Experts in mental health disagree. Homosexuality is not an affliction or condition of mental illness. There is no public health problem.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.

You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

Experts in mental health disagree. Homosexuality is not an affliction or condition of mental illness. There is no public health problem.

They are bound by law at this point...to say it is not a mental illness.