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

[Gadawg73]

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 fo 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 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, whose belief-system steers them irreversibly down such a path... generation after generation...

Mind your own business. I do not need you to tell me what is moral, Godly, evil or not.
I am a religious person of faith that disagrees with you.
Stop pushing your religious beliefs on others. We respect them but do not want them in the law.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

While no one SHOULD have to hide their business. That's in a free country, which we no longer have. The anti Christian reality is what we have and adjustments will have to be made. We COULD fix this and stop applying politically correct nonsense but that isn't happening. Religious freedom might be restored one day, but today is not that day.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

>>>>

Look again. I suggested nothing of the sort. (I still think it is something in the water the liberals drink that makes them read things and see things that aren't there resulting in such straw man and non sequitur arguments.)

Existing marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody. They did not discriminate based on race, creed, ethncitiy, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. Every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws.

Those states that have changed their laws to accommodate same sex marriage had to change the definition of marriage in order to do that, something other states have chosen not to do.

Court rulings ending true discrimination such as interracial marriage are an entirely different thing. When a law violates somebody's unalienable rights, that is when the court should speak. Marriage laws did not do that and the courts all should say so and advise the legislatures to change the law if they want to include same sex marriages.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Although I'm a non-believer, I'm wondering why separation of Church and State does not apply in this situation?
Essentially the government is allowing persons who have different, and perhaps higher moral standards, to be discriminated against and even threatened physically.
The practical solution to the disagreement should have been for the couple to seek the services desired from another bakery in the competitive marketplace.
The Kleins, in my opinion, have legal grounds to seek and receive damages as a result of the actions taken against them in exercising their 1st Amendment right.

And who should be the defendant in the lawsuit? The couple who the vendor refused service to? The customers who gave up on the bakery when the controversy arose? Maybe it should be a class action naming all of the assholes who exercised their 1st amendment rights and sent disparaging mail?

Hope they can afford to pay the lawyer themselves or they get it pro-bono, 'cause this is going to be pretty thin if on contingency.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

While no one SHOULD have to hide their business. That's in a free country, which we no longer have. The anti Christian reality is what we have and adjustments will have to be made. We COULD fix this and stop applying politically correct nonsense but that isn't happening. Religious freedom might be restored one day, but today is not that day.

But don't you see? If the Christians just roll over and play dead, we return to the days of the catacombs during the worst persecution in the Roman Empire. The minorities, the gays, the Atheists, women militant on women's issues, etc. etc. etc. are all demanding the laws and civil protocol accommodate them. We Christians should be just as vocal and demand our rights too. I am getting sick and tired of being one of the last two demographics that it is acceptable to discriminate against and beat up on in this country.

 

[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?

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.

They weren't persecuted.

They committed the first mortal sin of business: Pissing off the market they serve.

They had every right to refuse service but now they have to live with the consequences.

If they're looking for sympathy from me they can look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

They weren't persecuted.

They committed the first mortal sin of business: Pissing off the market they serve.

They had every right to refuse service but now they have to live with the consequences.

If they're looking for sympathy from me they can look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

If the consequences are that people just choose to go elsewhere, so be it. If the consequences are that some choose to destroy their business, issue threats against their customers, their families, their suppliers etc. - that is evil. Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share.

 

[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 fo 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 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, whose belief-system steers them irreversibly down such a path... generation after generation...

Mind your own business...

Ahhhh, but, metaphorically speaking, I AM minding my own business, in playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of the Bakers, with an eye towards preserving or restoring their rights, and the prerogatives and rights of a great many others just like them, who might eventually fall prey to such a state of affairs.

"...I do not need you to tell me what is moral, Godly, evil or not..."

Agreed.

Completely.

I will not tell you what is moral, Godly, evil or not.

But please respect my right to decide for myself what is moral and Godly and evil or not, and do not impose your perspective upon me, either.

And, of course, you are doing just that - imposing your viewpoint upon me - when you force me to serve and associate with people whom I believe engage in unclean behaviors.

If you wish to serve them and to bake a cake, that's fine; I'm all good with that; go for it; it's none of my business; I really don't care.

But don't hypocritically force ME to bake them a cake, when I have valid moral objections.

Goose and gander and all that.

"...I am a religious person of faith that disagrees with you..."

And I respect that, as I respect you as a colleague.

Sometime last night, in this very thread, I, for one, acknowledged a wide range of opinion and values and judgments about this topic, within each of the mainstream religions.

There is plenty of room for disagreement, so long as one side does not have the upper hand, with an ability to shove its viewpoint down the throats of the Opposition, as appears to be happening in the case of the Bakers.

"...Stop pushing your religious beliefs on others..."

If the Bakers had been evangelizing in active opposition against homosexuality, and had used their business as a vehicle and stepping stone for that purpose, I might even be inclined to agree with you.

However, we are talking about folks who believe in their hearts and spirit that homosexuality is evil and that to associate with such folks is an immoral or unclean thing to do.

You (we, the Nation, through our laws) are pushing our SECULAR beliefs upon the Bakers, in direct contravention to centuries - milennia - of secular and canon law and philosophy which holds such practices to be morally reprehensible and injurious to the state and its people and its moral fiber.

"...We respect them but do not want them in the law."

It is my perception that you DISrespect them (those beliefs) when you attempt to silence those who would interject them as a salient point in related conversations.

As to wanting them in the law or not wanting them in the law... well... frankly... I see what is unfolding around us now, as the opening shots in a very long, protracted, multi-generational struggle between those willing to 'normalize' such behaviors and those who find them Libertine and dissipated and injurious to the state and its citizenry.

I'm guessing that if we could time-warp ahead 50 years, we would find our Older Selves or our descendants still arguing like hell over this one.

But I don't claim any particular future sight nor do I possess a crystal ball.

 

[RKMBrown]

Existing marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody. They did not discriminate based on race, creed, ethncitiy, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. Every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws.

You appear to be a person of reason on most topics.

However, please recognize that your statement here is a circular argument.

You are attempting to prove "marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody" because "every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws."

Your supposition, thus, is that laws discriminating against a particular group, in this case gays, are ok because everyone is treated the same. Your supposition is that it's ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation, because they don't have to have a sexual orientation that the law discriminates against.

Your argument attempts, poorly, to defend discrimination as long as everyone is discriminated against in the same way. But the law did not ban all marriages irregardless of sexual orientation did it? Nope. It discriminated only against gay couples, because the majority believed at some point in time that discriminating against gay couples was good for society.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

While no one SHOULD have to hide their business. That's in a free country, which we no longer have. The anti Christian reality is what we have and adjustments will have to be made. We COULD fix this and stop applying politically correct nonsense but that isn't happening. Religious freedom might be restored one day, but today is not that day.

But don't you see? If the Christians just roll over and play dead, we return to the days of the catacombs during the worst persecution in the Roman Empire. The minorities, the gays, the Atheists, women militant on women's issues, etc. etc. etc. are all demanding the laws and civil protocol accommodate them. We Christians should be just as vocal and demand our rights too. I am getting sick and tired of being one of the last two demographics that it is acceptable to discriminate against and beat up on in this country.

Oh I see all right. The persecution of Christians in the United States is no different from that of the Roman Empire or in Islamic countries today. Persecution has the force of law. Be vocal, demand religious rights, and stop offering services to gays. Offer them privately, to those who respect religious rights.

After the successful defense in my discrimination case, a photographer in my art group changed. He stopped photographing weddings. He stopped advertising as a wedding photographer. He became a pet and child photographer, but if you knew him or knew someone who knew him, there was nothing preventing him from being a wedding photographer.

Here is a random photographer. I just picked one out of many on the internet.

Synek Photography

Do you think this photographer wouldn't photograph a friend's wedding?

Here's a random bakery. Same thing, just pulled it up off the internet. Do you see wedding cakes?

Cupcakes Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Los Angeles - Sugar Babies Cupcakery

If you knew this baker personally is there anything preventing them from baking a wedding cake? If someone off the street walked in and asked for a wedding cake could they say this was not a service they offered?

From the number of businesses now putting limits on their services, it is likely already happening.

 

[Moonglow]

Ummmm,,,how many christians were executed in the Forum last night?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

They weren't persecuted.

They committed the first mortal sin of business: Pissing off the market they serve.

They had every right to refuse service but now they have to live with the consequences.

If they're looking for sympathy from me they can look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

If the consequences are that people just choose to go elsewhere, so be it. If the consequences are that some choose to destroy their business, issue threats against their customers, their families, their suppliers etc. - that is evil. Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share.

I disagree.

The world is changing, social attitudes are changing, markets are changing.

as a business you adapt or die.

They did not adapt.

And I have yet to have explained in any reasonable terms how baking a cake for someone is against anyone's religious convictions.

If a gay couple wanted a birthday cake for their adopted kid would they have been refused by this bakery?

If a gay couple came in holding hands to buy a cupcake would they have been refused?

If this was about marriage then don't Christian churches refuse to recognize civil marriage?

If two atheists came in and wanted a wedding cake would they have been refused because they weren't really getting married and were going to be living in sin?

This was about bigotry and nothing more and quite frankly I don't care if bigots suffer because of their bigotry.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

They weren't persecuted.

They committed the first mortal sin of business: Pissing off the market they serve.

They had every right to refuse service but now they have to live with the consequences.

If they're looking for sympathy from me they can look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

If the consequences are that people just choose to go elsewhere, so be it. If the consequences are that some choose to destroy their business, issue threats against their customers, their families, their suppliers etc. - that is evil. Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share.

They purposefully screwed their customers. Society does not OWE YOU A JOB. Screw your customers and you most certainly deserve to loose your customers. You don't have a right to FORCE me to buy your goods and services. You may choose who you want to serve and I may choose who I want to buy from.

 

[Moonglow]

of course today's christians do not even live by the Bible, so,,,,

 

[Kondor3]

"...Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share."

 

[Kondor3]

"...They purposefully screwed their customers..."

No, they didn't screw-over their customer base.

They merely refused service to one customer, on moral or religious grounds.

And the vicious little pricks made a Cecil B. DeMille production out of it, and rode the present crest of pro-Gay legislation and rulings, and fucked them over good and proper, for holding to their religious beliefs.

Refusing service to one prospect on traditional religious grounds is hardly 'screwing their customers'.

 

[Moonglow]

"...Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share."

Then why are businesses being run out of town because good christians don't like them, ie; strip clubs, adult book stores, head shops,, to name a few. The God damned christians have been fucking businesses over that they don't like so all I can say is, paybacks a bitch.

 

[Foxfyre]

They weren't persecuted.

They committed the first mortal sin of business: Pissing off the market they serve.

They had every right to refuse service but now they have to live with the consequences.

If they're looking for sympathy from me they can look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.

If the consequences are that people just choose to go elsewhere, so be it. If the consequences are that some choose to destroy their business, issue threats against their customers, their families, their suppliers etc. - that is evil. Nobody should be intentionally destroyed because they hold a view that others do not share.

I disagree.

The world is changing, social attitudes are changing, markets are changing.

as a business you adapt or die.

They did not adapt.

And I have yet to have explained in any reasonable terms how baking a cake for someone is against anyone's religious convictions.

If a gay couple wanted a birthday cake for their adopted kid would they have been refused by this bakery?

If a gay couple came in holding hands to buy a cupcake would they have been refused?

If this was about marriage then don't Christian churches refuse to recognize civil marriage?

If two atheists came in and wanted a wedding cake would they have been refused because they weren't really getting married and were going to be living in sin?

This was about bigotry and nothing more and quite frankly I don't care if bigots suffer because of their bigotry.

Well, if you believe it is okay to intentionally and with malice of forethought destroy somebody's business because they hold a view you don't share, I think you might be part of the problem here.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"...They purposefully screwed their customers..."

No, they didn't screw-over their customer base.

They merely refused service to one customer, on moral or religious grounds.

And the vicious little pricks made a Cecil B. DeMille production out of it, and rode the present crest of pro-Gay legislation and rulings, and fucked them over good and proper, for holding to their religious beliefs.

Refusing service to one prospect on traditional religious grounds is hardly 'screwing their customers'.

Taking a moral stand solely on gay marriage and not refusing all gay people is hypocritical at best.

As I asked before would these people have refused a gay couple for simply buying a cupcake or a birthday cake for their artificially conceived child?

Surely all of the above are contradictory to their religious beliefs.

 

[RKMBrown]

"...They purposefully screwed their customers..."

No, they didn't screw-over their customer base.

They merely refused service to one customer, on moral or religious grounds.

And the vicious little pricks made a Cecil B. DeMille production out of it, and rode the present crest of pro-Gay legislation and rulings, and fucked them over good and proper, for holding to their religious beliefs.

Refusing service to one prospect on traditional religious grounds is hardly 'screwing their customers'.

Let's say you are "black" for a moment.

You walk into a bar and ask for a drink. The guy behind the bar says no we don't serve "n__s."

Do you A) leave like a good little "n___r" or B) refuse to leave till you are served and get your face in the papers when the cops come by to beat you and pull you out or C) use social media to let everyone know this racist does not serve blacks?

Social media has replaced news papers as the means for enacting social change, get over it.