Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again. Not even a sugar cookie.
They will have to find another bakery, just as they would have had to do to bake their cake.
Only because the bakery is closed. Had they continued to visit the bakery as it once existed, I am confident they would continue to be treated as any other customer as they already were. It was not THEM that the bakers objected to but the bakers did not want to be part of a same sex marriage which they did not condone. If the hatemongers who went after those bakers, tooth and nail, had any integrity, they would track down every single Californian (or in any other state) who voted against same sex marriage and subject them to the same vile treatment.
What happened to the bakery owners is evil. It should never happen in a free America.
Bingo.Well the people applauding their demise are constantly using the phrase 'boycott' but you're right. It wasn't a boycott, even though an organized boycott of a business purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner, is evil. Those condoning the demise of the business are condoning the most hateful rhetoric and threats and justify it because the owners of the business are bigots.
Well who isn't bigoted about somethng? I daresay anybody who says he isn't is a liar. And a free people are allowed to be as bigoted as they want to be with impunity. The law says they are not allowed to impose their bigotry in a way that violates the unalienable rights of another. And that is a just law. But just to be bigoted? That is also an unalienable right.
But if we can be destroyed simply because we are politically incorrect, that is pure evil. And this is no longer America.
It was a boycott. Nobody boycotted "purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner", they boycotted because the owners took it that extra step of physically denying service to customers for no other reason then they were homos.
Nobody is endorsing hateful rhetoric and threats (if indeed they did happen), you just made that up because you're argument is weak and you needed some sensationalizing to breath some life into it.
BTW: Welcome to the forum Alfalfa.
Great to see you here!
One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again. Not even a sugar cookie.
They will have to find another bakery, just as they would have had to do to bake their cake.
Except this "new" bakery will think twice about refusing them service based on their sexual orientation.
Oh snap. See how that works?
Bingo.Well the people applauding their demise are constantly using the phrase 'boycott' but you're right. It wasn't a boycott, even though an organized boycott of a business purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner, is evil. Those condoning the demise of the business are condoning the most hateful rhetoric and threats and justify it because the owners of the business are bigots.
Well who isn't bigoted about somethng? I daresay anybody who says he isn't is a liar. And a free people are allowed to be as bigoted as they want to be with impunity. The law says they are not allowed to impose their bigotry in a way that violates the unalienable rights of another. And that is a just law. But just to be bigoted? That is also an unalienable right.
But if we can be destroyed simply because we are politically incorrect, that is pure evil. And this is no longer America.
It was a boycott. Nobody boycotted "purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner", they boycotted because the owners took it that extra step of physically denying service to customers for no other reason then they were homos.
Nobody is endorsing hateful rhetoric and threats (if indeed they did happen), you just made that up because you're argument is weak and you needed some sensationalizing to breath some life into it.
BTW: Welcome to the forum Alfalfa.
Great to see you here!
It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business. It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.
Well the people applauding their demise are constantly using the phrase 'boycott' but you're right. It wasn't a boycott, even though an organized boycott of a business purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner, is evil. Those condoning the demise of the business are condoning the most hateful rhetoric and threats and justify it because the owners of the business are bigots.
Well who isn't bigoted about somethng? I daresay anybody who says he isn't is a liar. And a free people are allowed to be as bigoted as they want to be with impunity. The law says they are not allowed to impose their bigotry in a way that violates the unalienable rights of another. And that is a just law. But just to be bigoted? That is also an unalienable right.
But if we can be destroyed simply because we are politically incorrect, that is pure evil. And this is no longer America.
It was a boycott. Nobody boycotted "purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner", they boycotted because the owners took it that extra step of physically denying service to customers for no other reason then they were homos.
Nobody is endorsing hateful rhetoric and threats (if indeed they did happen), you just made that up because you're argument is weak and you needed some sensationalizing to breath some life into it.
PF.comBingo.It was a boycott. Nobody boycotted "purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner", they boycotted because the owners took it that extra step of physically denying service to customers for no other reason then they were homos.
Nobody is endorsing hateful rhetoric and threats (if indeed they did happen), you just made that up because you're argument is weak and you needed some sensationalizing to breath some life into it.
BTW: Welcome to the forum Alfalfa.
Great to see you here!
Are you the Paperview I've seen on other sites?
What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself. You people are so incredibly simple minded that you can't see that. Making that bakery go to the gay wedding would be like me making you sleep with a straight person. A crude analogy perhaps, but you simply don't understand when you so easily deny someone their conscience.
No it wasn't. They have pick up service.What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself.
...
One thing is certain, these "homos" won't be able to buy anything from this bakery ever again. Not even a sugar cookie.
They will have to find another bakery, just as they would have had to do to bake their cake.
Except this "new" bakery will think twice about refusing them service based on their sexual orientation.
Oh snap. See how that works?
Or better yet, add more to their services provided.
If the couple asks them to go to their gay wedding to deliver it,
the business can ask them to let their prayer teams pray with them for healing
in order to receive a free cake, as part of their charity outreach.
If the couple passes on that, and just wants the free cake,
the business can still give them a free copy of the book
"Can Homosexuality be Healed" explaining the difference
between natural and unnatural cases of homosexuality,
and which cases can be healed by spiritual forgiveness therapy and deliverance.
They don't have to read it, if the business doesn't have to go to their wedding.
[and about the cost of giving away free cakes to couples they cannot do business
with but are not restricted from providing charity, for each request, the business
will distribute that to all sponsors of the program in order to solicit donations or
cakes to give to these couples. So as long as they are willing to have their
names distributed as charitable recipients, they can order their free cakes.
See how that works???]
What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself. You people are so incredibly simple minded that you can't see that. Making that bakery go to the gay wedding would be like me making you sleep with a straight person. A crude analogy perhaps, but you simply don't understand when you so easily deny someone their conscience.
No what you don't understand is the people who boycotted had no issue with the bakers RIGHT to not serve them, even by going to their wedding. However, they chose to subject the baker to econ consequences for the baker's action in denying them catering. The baker can't have his cake and eat it too.
No it wasn't. They have pick up service.What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself.
...
You're still just making things up.
Bingo.It was a boycott. Nobody boycotted "purely because you don't like the opinions of the owner", they boycotted because the owners took it that extra step of physically denying service to customers for no other reason then they were homos.
Nobody is endorsing hateful rhetoric and threats (if indeed they did happen), you just made that up because you're argument is weak and you needed some sensationalizing to breath some life into it.
BTW: Welcome to the forum Alfalfa.
Great to see you here!
What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself. You people are so incredibly simple minded that you can't see that. Making that bakery go to the gay wedding would be like me making you sleep with a straight person. A crude analogy perhaps, but you simply don't understand when you so easily deny someone their conscience.
You have no fucking idea what cake they were going to order.No it wasn't. They have pick up service.What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself.
...
You're still just making things up.
Do you really think that couple could have delivered a multi-tiered cake to their own wedding? Are you stupid?
Except this "new" bakery will think twice about refusing them service based on their sexual orientation.
Oh snap. See how that works?
Or better yet, add more to their services provided.
If the couple asks them to go to their gay wedding to deliver it,
the business can ask them to let their prayer teams pray with them for healing
in order to receive a free cake, as part of their charity outreach.
If the couple passes on that, and just wants the free cake,
the business can still give them a free copy of the book
"Can Homosexuality be Healed" explaining the difference
between natural and unnatural cases of homosexuality,
and which cases can be healed by spiritual forgiveness therapy and deliverance.
They don't have to read it, if the business doesn't have to go to their wedding.
[and about the cost of giving away free cakes to couples they cannot do business
with but are not restricted from providing charity, for each request, the business
will distribute that to all sponsors of the program in order to solicit donations or
cakes to give to these couples. So as long as they are willing to have their
names distributed as charitable recipients, they can order their free cakes.
See how that works???]
Seriously? This makes sense to you? Do you know how much a wedding cake costs? Have you ever been married? Have you ever been with another woman?
PF.comBingo.
BTW: Welcome to the forum Alfalfa.
Great to see you here!
Are you the Paperview I've seen on other sites?
Yep. I sent you some rep on your third post and noted it. Turn on your alerts.
Like I said, great to see you here. Guys, Alfalfa is a first rate poster. He will truly be an asset to the board.
Simple... how can you be intolerant of others intolerance? Does that not make you intolerant?
Maybe. but I would not refuse to serve someone in my business because I thoght they were intolerant. That is the very definition of tolerance now isn't it?
I really don't care what people think about me personally. But I do care what the consequences my decisions reap may do to my business.
Perhaps if people had a conscience instead of an agenda, yes indeed, he would still be in business.
Conscience? Telling people you are unhappy with a business because they refused a simple request to serve someone has nothing to do with conscience.
It's a simple fact of business that if you piss someone off they'll tell a hundred people about it but if you treat them fantastically they might tell 5.
Which is why you do your best not to piss people off if you care about your business.
I equate this as to them refusing to serve Blacks or Jews even if it was a religious belief to turn away blacks or jews.
But that's just me. Being free of religious dogma allows me treat everyone equally.
BTW can you tell me how baking this cake would somehow make the baker liable for the gay sin?
Any man who would sacrifice his conscience for the wills and whims of other men is not much of a man.
By baking that cake for a gay couple you are expressing condonement for that type of behavior, thus making it sinful.
Being free of "religious dogma" only allows you to treat others with impunity. This is what I mean by bigotry and intolerance. You folks are all the same, each and every time I encounter you, it's the same old line.
What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself. You people are so incredibly simple minded that you can't see that. Making that bakery go to the gay wedding would be like me making you sleep with a straight person. A crude analogy perhaps, but you simply don't understand when you so easily deny someone their conscience.
No what you don't understand is the people who boycotted had no issue with the bakers RIGHT to not serve them, even by going to their wedding. However, they chose to subject the baker to econ consequences for the baker's action in denying them catering. The baker can't have his cake and eat it too.
Sounds more like spite and revenge to me.
No it wasn't. They have pick up service.What you fail to understand is the fact that after making said cake for the customer, they have to be on site to assemble a cake of that kind. The very act of going there was the issue, THAT'S what violated their conscience, not that cake itself.
...
You're still just making things up.
Do you really think that couple could have delivered a multi-tiered cake to their own wedding? Are you stupid?
Fair enough. And I suppose you are arguing that said condemnation should be done completely in private to respect the beliefs of others? But not in this case, we get a pass on this forum?Heck, I'd buy from a gay store owner anytime. But I'm not going to force my beliefs on him. Nor will I sic militant Christian or Christian activist groups on his business if he refuses to serve me. He has a living to make just as much as I would. Gee, what a concept!
Make up your mind. Are you or are you not trying to force your belief on us that we should be intolerant of gays because of this incident where some gays supposedly ran this baker out of business. Yes or no.
I have never tried to force my beliefs on anyone. And it is not my place to tell you what you should believe. It is arrogant presumption to think I have such a power. No.
I am merely stating my opinion. As I said before, you have an issue with me stating it. Perhaps you should, perhaps you shouldn't. But as for myself I condemn it. And I would condemn it if the roles were reversed. There is no place in this universe or the next for that type of behavior.
