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

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Boycotting bigots should not be attached to the language used for first degree murder.

As I said if these bigots were consistent in their refusals to serve anyone who they believed lived a life that they felt was against their religious beliefs I might have more sympathy for them.

But that is obviously not the case here now is it?

They were happy to take other peoples money who were living in sin according to their religion weren't they?

Hypocritical bigots are even worse than run of the mill bigots.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Christians have been doing it for many decades.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Baking a cake violates no one's religious beliefs. This very couple had special event cakes made for them by this very same bakery. No one is suggesting that the bakery denied service to this gay couple. They were regulars at this bakery. When it came to a wedding cake the parameters are changed. A wedding cake is not picked up at the bakery. The baker has to go to the venue and construct the tiered cake. Like the photographer who did not want to attend the same sex wedding, a baker is required to attend a same sex wedding in violation of their religious beliefs. Foxfyre had a good idea. Bake the cake and tell the couple that they are on their own in the presentation at the wedding. And they had to provide their own same sex topper too.

 

[Kondor3]

"...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..."

Because strip clubs, adult book stores, head shops, etc., are all part of the same dissipated, dissolute, libertine society-wide sickness, and are purposefully kept in the shadows and away from children and schools and such for a good reason.

Now, if you had said that, nationwide or society-wide, Christians (or other religious folk) were purposefully running non-strip dance clubs and regular book stores and non-drug -related accessories shops out of town, well, you'd have a lot more support for the argument.

"...The God damned christians have been fucking businesses over that they don't like..."

Don't look now, but an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens are either (1) practicing Christians or (2) members of Christian-sympathetic families or (3) descendants of long multi-generational lines of Christians; our entire society is based, two or three steps removed, from European common law and precedent, which, in turn, is based upon European canon law and the morality and philosophy developed and maintained by our ancestors. You live in a Secular Christian country, and you, too, are part of that heritage.

Christians, and other religious folk, are merely the ones most likely to raise objections to some scumbag or another trying to open-up a strip club or adult book store or head-shop in proximity to decent folk and their families; somebody's got to do it, and they fulfill their role as volunteer watchdogs and warning klaxons quite admirably, in countering the worst that the more dissipated and dissolute and libertine amongst us are capable of attempting.

"...so all I can say is, paybacks a bitch."

Throwing bricks at the Watchdog because he barked at someone whom we did not want him to bark at, makes very little sense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.)

Actually you did. Read your own post above, YOU are the one that stated that courts should not be involved in matters at that level - that is should solely be under the purview of the legislature.

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 realize that the structure of that argument is the exact same one that the Commonwealth of Virginia used in the Loving case (i.e. that no one was being discriminated against because the law applied equally to coloreds and whites). It wasn't accepted as logical then either.

You left out in your list though "gender", and yes the law discriminates based on the gender composition of the couple.

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.

True

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.

Actually marriage laws discriminating based on gender - are discriminatory.

There is no real difference in discriminating based on one biological factor (gender) as compared to another biological factor (race).


***********************************************

BTW - I'm not a "Liberal", I've been a registered Republican since 1978. The difference is I can honestly recognize discrimination for no compelling government reason and call it what it is instead of stretching to try to justify discrimination by the government.


>>>>

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Baking a cake violates no one's religious beliefs. This very couple had special event cakes made for them by this very same bakery. No one is suggesting that the bakery denied service to this gay couple. They were regulars at this bakery. When it came to a wedding cake the parameters are changed. A wedding cake is not picked up at the bakery. The baker has to go to the venue and construct the tiered cake.

When no one is there and before the event happens. My aunt used to bake cakes for people and when she set up a wedding cake in the reception area it was hours before the event and she did not have to attend the ceremony or the reception..

Did this baker refuse to bake cakes for those getting a civil ceremony not sanctioned by their church? After all they would be living in sin too.

Or was it only gay people who would be living in sin?

They took an arbitrary stand on the gay wedding cake and now they are paying the price.

 

[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'.

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.

You are correct.

That would, indeed, be hypocritical.

Is that what happened here?

Or is it that the Bakers refused service to Gays, period, on such grounds, which would be more consistent?

Did that every come up, while they were still in business?

If 'yes', then I may have missed something.

Then again, hypocrisy, in itself, is not a barrier to acting in such-and-so a fashion, if it can be counterpointed by such factors as (1) not knowing the orientation of the people being served, (2) being so busy in the shop that orientation never came-up on their scope, (3) or they simply changed their minds and viewpoint, upon further reflection on the moral implications.

Hypocrisy, while unattractive under most circumstances, is not necessarily a barrier to defensible actions.

And people are allowed to change their minds, as the grow and mature and reflect further upon the world around them...

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Boycotting bigots should not be attached to the language used for first degree murder.

As I said if these bigots were consistent in their refusals to serve anyone who they believed lived a life that they felt was against their religious beliefs I might have more sympathy for them.

But that is obviously not the case here now is it?

They were happy to take other peoples money who were living in sin according to their religion weren't they?

Hypocritical bigots are even worse than run of the mill bigots.

And what gives you the moral superiority to judge these people in what they are and are not to consider sin? Should I be able to destroy your livelihood or your business because I don't like the words you use or the beliefs you hold? Again, if they refused to serve people who come to their place of business, that is unacceptable discrimination. To refuse to be part of something that they could not condone at another location is something else quite again.

Had they refused to deliver a cake to the Westboro Baptist Church or a KKK convention or a cock fight or Rush Limbaugh's birthday party, there wouldn't have been a murmer of protest from anybody.

As Katz pointed out they didn't refuse service to the couple. They just didn't want to attend a gay wedding at another location. That should be their right as much as it should be any of our right to not be forced to go to something we can't condone.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Baking a cake violates no one's religious beliefs..."

No, but, perhaps, serving 'sinful folk' or associating with 'sinful folk' would; as one must do in the process of creating that cake.

And, with respect to precedent and service history...

Is it not possible that the Bakers simply had a change-of-mind or change-of-heart, or had achieved some (for them) new enlightenment on the subject, that caused them to depart from their former treatment of Gay customers?

People's beliefs and perceptions are dynamic; they evolve; they change.

People are allowed to change their minds.

And, when that change-of-mind results in a different moral perspective; one that echoes traditional secular and canonical thinking on the subject...

Such changes also serve to change the way folks (including business-folk) interact with the world...

I'm not saying that this was, indeed, the case here, but that sounds like a very logical and believeable rationale for the change-of-service parameters...

Perhaps I need to do some supplemental reading on the case...

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

You are correct.

That would, indeed, be hypocritical.

Is that what happened here?

Or is it that the Bakers refused service to Gays, period, on such grounds, which would be more consistent?

Did that every come up, while they were still in business?

If 'yes', then I may have missed something.

Then again, hypocrisy, in itself, is not a barrier to acting in such-and-so a fashion, if it can be counterpointed by such factors as (1) now knowing the orientation of the people being served, (2) being so busy in the shop that orientation never came-up on their scope, (3) or they simply changed their minds and viewpoint, upon further reflection upon the moral implications.

Hypocrisy, while unattractive under most circumstances, is not necessarily a barrier to defensible actions.

And people are allowed to change their minds, as the grow and mature and reflect further upon the world around them...

No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You are correct.

That would, indeed, be hypocritical.

Is that what happened here?

Or is it that the Bakers refused service to Gays, period, on such grounds, which would be more consistent?

Did that every come up, while they were still in business?

If 'yes', then I may have missed something.

Then again, hypocrisy, in itself, is not a barrier to acting in such-and-so a fashion, if it can be counterpointed by such factors as (1) now knowing the orientation of the people being served, (2) being so busy in the shop that orientation never came-up on their scope, (3) or they simply changed their minds and viewpoint, upon further reflection upon the moral implications.

Hypocrisy, while unattractive under most circumstances, is not necessarily a barrier to defensible actions.

And people are allowed to change their minds, as the grow and mature and reflect further upon the world around them...

No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them.

If it was a person of a religion other than Christianity--say Jewish or Muslim or whatever--who explained to a customer that they would bake them a cake to take with them, but their religion forbade them to enter a . . . . .or attend a. . . .or whatever, would there be the same degree of outrage?

 

[g5000]

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

A year ago I would have said 'good.' But actually seeing that it happened, - I don't like how this feels. They shouldn't have been treated as they have been treated, not in my estimation.

Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couple’s children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.

And yet another wrote: “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot.”
The couple said on top of that, their vendors were “badgered and harassed” into stopping all associations with the bakery.

The Kleins say they’re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash.

Looks like they need a Chik-Fil-A-type support system.

Gosh, some feelings were hurt?

You know, every time there is a topic about gay marriage, some creep comes along and equates being gay to being a pedophile. Where are the objections then? Where is Glenn Beck's moral outrage then? When has Glenn Beck's rag (The Blaze) ever spoken out against these incredibly offensive, widespread abuses?


The closing of the bakery is a libertarian victory. After all, libertarians always claim there is no need for civil rights laws as people will avoid discriminatory establishments and they will go out of business. And that is EXACTLY what has just happened.

Yet, in another topic today, a USMB forum member said he would watch with glee if someone beat a fag to death over this bakery incident.

And that is why we need civil liberties laws. Because beneath the skin of every bigot lies a violent asshole wanting vengeance for a community exercising its free speech and free market choices, and Glenn Beck and his piss outlet are stoking them.

So the gays and their community fought back against bigots and centuries of discrimination and oppression, and THAT is what pisses you off?

Interesting.

 

[Kondor3]

"...No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them."

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

They should have that right...

They should not be able to refuse product or services based on race, religion, and all of that - none of which have legitimate moral implications...

But they should be able to refuse product or services when doing so DOES have legitimate moral implications...

Now, it's merely a matter of defining what is 'legitimate'...

THAT is the crux of the argument, methinks...

 

[g5000]

"...No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them."

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible, and the business went under.

God bless America!

Now a bakery that serves ALL the needs of the community can open.

 

[bodecea]

What is forgotten by the whiners is that the store closed because of ENOUGH public opinion to boycott them. One person or one couple boycotting isn't going to close anything. But public opinion was enough to make them lose business. Are the whiners suggesting that people should have been FORCED to buy from that business even if they did not want to?

 

[Katzndogz]

"...No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them."

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible.

That's not what happened. The gay mafia engaged in a hate campaign against the bakery and its customers. That's what happened. They were intimidated out of business. Their customers were intimidated from buying from them.

They will take a break and open up someplace else under a new name, but better educated on how to avoid anti Christian bigots.

 

[g5000]

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible.

That's not what happened. The gay mafia engaged in a hate campaign against the bakery and its customers. That's what happened. They were intimidated out of business. Their customers were intimidated from buying from them.

That's quite a fantasy you manufactured to comfort yourself.

Now a new bakery that serves ALL the needs of the community can open.

 

[Foxfyre]

"...No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them."

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

No, that is not what he said.

They were perfectly willing to bake a cake for the gay couple. They were not willing to be present at an event they could not morally condone. A large wedding cake is generally assembled at the location of the reception.

Should a place of business be REQUIRED to provide services at a customer location regardless of what or where that location is?

Again, should the baker be punished and destroyed, as he was, if he had refused to deliver and assemble a cake at:

The Westboro Baptist Church?
A KKK convention?
A dog fight or cock fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

Perhaps everybody should include in their advertising:
While we do try to accommodate our customers, we cannot agree to deliver some orders.

 

[g5000]

Bigots just hate it when fags won't lie down and take their beating. They hate it when the fags fight back. How dare they!

 

[g5000]

"...No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them."

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

No, that is not what he said.

They were perfectly willing to bake a cake for the gay couple. They were not willing to be present at an event they could not morally condone. A large wedding cake is generally assembled at the location of the reception.

Should a place of business be REQUIRED to provide services at a customer location regardless of what or where that location is?

Again, should the baker be punished and destroyed, as he was, if he had refused to deliver and assemble a cake at:

The Westboro Baptist Church?
A KKK convention?
A dog fight or cock fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

Perhaps everybody should include in their advertising:
While we do try to accommodate our customers, we cannot agree to deliver some orders.

If a bakery refused to bake a Klan Kake, the community would support them.


Unless it was Alabama...