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

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

So much for the golden rule huh?

 

[Katzndogz]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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

I see, so because "the state" says so, I must also believe likewise.

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

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

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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

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

So much for the golden rule huh?

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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

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

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

The BASTARDS!!!!!!

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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

So much for the golden rule huh?

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

Are you hoping they will encourage other Christian business owners to go out of business for God?

Sorry but wilfully and blatantly breaking anti-discrimination law against your customers is basically asking to be put out of business.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

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

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

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

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

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



>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

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

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

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

Well, Hawk...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicely done.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

So much for the golden rule huh?

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

Good idea

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

 

[Kondor3]

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

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>

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

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

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

 

[Katzndogz]

So much for the golden rule huh?

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

Are you hoping they will encourage other Christian business owners to go out of business for God?

Sorry but wilfully and blatantly breaking anti-discrimination law against your customers is basically asking to be put out of business.

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

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

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

So, a serious question Fox:

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

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

 

[bendog]

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

Are you hoping they will encourage other Christian business owners to go out of business for God?

Sorry but wilfully and blatantly breaking anti-discrimination law against your customers is basically asking to be put out of business.

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

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Are you hoping they will encourage other Christian business owners to go out of business for God?

Sorry but wilfully and blatantly breaking anti-discrimination law against your customers is basically asking to be put out of business.

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

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

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

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

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

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

>>>>

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

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

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

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


That blank people should have just sucked it up?


>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

Here's an idea...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gadawg73]

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

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

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

>>>>

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

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

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

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


That blank people should have just sucked it up?


>>>>

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