Mainstreeter
Rookie
- Jan 1, 2012
- 3
- 1
- 1
I agree with Noomi. No one wants to do business with bigots.
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.
The owners never said anything about delivering the cake. They said they would not bake a cake for same sex weddings.Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make
Didn't even bother to see it was from a story from the LOCAL Portland paper, did you?
lol. You cite the Moonie Times as Gospel, but the local newspaper reporter in Portland, naw...gotta be lyin'.
Show me any cake mentioned in the linked article that had to be assembled at the customer location or even delivered to the customer location, and you might have a point.
Show me any evidence that the gay couple was ever refused an order that they could pick up at the bakery. That they were EVER refused an order at the bakery which apparently they went to regularly for products.
This is just getting ridiculous now.
Poor connies. Ever the victims. When the story doesn't match, just make it up on the fly to perpetuate more victimhood.
Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon
He had religious symbols, and faith based decorations all over his shop. So how could this couple have known? It was in front of their very eyes. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they came there.
I agree with Noomi. No one wants to do business with bigots.
Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon
He had religious symbols, and faith based decorations all over his shop. So how could this couple have known? It was in front of their very eyes. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they came there.
Why would it occur to someone that because someone believes in God they are also homophobic? I dont get the connection. I know plenty of people that belive in God and have no issue with gay people other than to disagree with their lifestyle.
You must assume every Christian who advertises their faith on the wall is a bigot willing to break the law in serving people equally.Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon
He had religious symbols, and faith based decorations all over his shop. So how could this couple have known? It was in front of their very eyes. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they came there.
I see.
Now for those of you who seem to have no eyes in your skulls, or selective sight, watch this video:
Did a baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Business | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon
He had religious symbols, and faith based decorations all over his shop. So how could this couple have known? It was in front of their very eyes. They knew what they were getting themselves into when they came there.
Why would it occur to someone that because someone believes in God they are also homophobic? I dont get the connection. I know plenty of people that belive in God and have no issue with gay people other than to disagree with their lifestyle.
It is because we believe in God that we are seen as homophobic. I have no issue with homosexuals as far as the person is concerned, but I will not capitulate the tenets of my faith to beck to the every whim of theirs that I see as sinful. If marriage is about devotion, so is my faith. I am devoted to my Lord God and his ways, and I will not stray from him for the likes of anyone.
Why would it occur to someone that because someone believes in God they are also homophobic? I dont get the connection. I know plenty of people that belive in God and have no issue with gay people other than to disagree with their lifestyle.
It is because we believe in God that we are seen as homophobic. I have no issue with homosexuals as far as the person is concerned, but I will not capitulate the tenets of my faith to beck to the every whim of theirs that I see as sinful. If marriage is about devotion, so is my faith. I am devoted to my Lord God and his ways, and I will not stray from him for the likes of anyone.
But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?
>
Interesting. I never heard that boycotts were "evil" during all the years the AFA was calling for all types of boycotts for gay friendly businesses.
Now that a boycott has occurred supporting a gay couple, suddenly it's "evil".
Wow how time change.
>>>>
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.
Yeah, that's the pt. You cannot logically disagree with a boycott, regardless of how you feel about this issue or any other issue. If a store sells playboy, for example, people can boycott. If a store actively says they welcome GLBT, people can boycott. Everyone has free speech and right to patronize whomever they wish.
Personally, I find the state anti-discrimination laws to be more govt than i wish. However, I also think Lester Maddux had a right to choose not to serve African Americans, even though I personnally would never buy anything from such a person. However, state anti-discrimination laws are the law, and my personal opinion is irrelevant, except to disinguish the laws effect on christian bakers from the boycott's effect.
It is because we believe in God that we are seen as homophobic. I have no issue with homosexuals as far as the person is concerned, but I will not capitulate the tenets of my faith to beck to the every whim of theirs that I see as sinful. If marriage is about devotion, so is my faith. I am devoted to my Lord God and his ways, and I will not stray from him for the likes of anyone.
But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?
You have nothing to fear.
Idiocy isn't a sin.
We have ALL sinned.
The 'trick' is to not REPEAT that sinful behavior
Where the hell do you guys keep coming up with this? They HAD to deliver?Wrong. They did NOT refuse to serve gay people. They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone. They don't refuse to serve black people. But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.
...
You guys are flying off your pants now making shit up. Stop it.
The owner didn't even let them get that far. You have NO WAY to know if they even intended to pick it up or not.
The minute they told them it was for a same sex wedding, the bakers said they wouldn't do it, and the "abominations" spewed forth.
No. They said they didn't do same sex weddings. And the one line you keep citing was certainly not all there was to the conversation, now was it? The gay couple definitely wanted a wedding cake that the bakers would have had to assemble at the reception hall. Otherwise, they would have gotten their cake at the bakers as would any other customer. As that very same gay couple had always received service at the same bakery.
Until you can show me proof that there was any other scenario, I will stand by my opinion on this.
To intentionally destroy a person's livelihood purely because you don't share their beliefs or convictions is pure bigotry, is unAmerican, and is evil.
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.
Yeah, that's the pt. You cannot logically disagree with a boycott, regardless of how you feel about this issue or any other issue. If a store sells playboy, for example, people can boycott. If a store actively says they welcome GLBT, people can boycott. Everyone has free speech and right to patronize whomever they wish.
Personally, I find the state anti-discrimination laws to be more govt than i wish. However, I also think Lester Maddux had a right to choose not to serve African Americans, even though I personnally would never buy anything from such a person. However, state anti-discrimination laws are the law, and my personal opinion is irrelevant, except to disinguish the laws effect on christian bakers from the boycott's effect.
If businesses would put out signs that tells us they refuse to service certain people, I'd be all for that. Then when I see the sign, I can make my choice and not go in there or do business with them. That would probably be to easy though.
The owners never said anything about delivering the cake. They said they would not bake a cake for same sex weddings.Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make
Didn't even bother to see it was from a story from the LOCAL Portland paper, did you?
lol. You cite the Moonie Times as Gospel, but the local newspaper reporter in Portland, naw...gotta be lyin'.
Show me any cake mentioned in the linked article that had to be assembled at the customer location or even delivered to the customer location, and you might have a point.
Show me any evidence that the gay couple was ever refused an order that they could pick up at the bakery. That they were EVER refused an order at the bakery which apparently they went to regularly for products.
This is just getting ridiculous now.
Poor connies. Ever the victims. When the story doesn't match, just make it up on the fly to perpetuate more victimhood.
But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?
You have nothing to fear.
Idiocy isn't a sin.
We have ALL sinned.
The 'trick' is to not REPEAT that sinful behavior
Ah, but that's the rub. If a GLBT person finds homosexuality not a sin, can a person who sees it as a sin treat the GLBT as a sinner w/o the GLBT responding in kind?
But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?
You have nothing to fear.
Idiocy isn't a sin.
We have ALL sinned.
The 'trick' is to not REPEAT that sinful behavior
Ah, but that's the rub. If a GLBT person finds homosexuality not a sin, can a person who sees it as a sin treat the GLBT as a sinner w/o the GLBT responding in kind?
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.
Yeah, that's the pt. You cannot logically disagree with a boycott, regardless of how you feel about this issue or any other issue. If a store sells playboy, for example, people can boycott. If a store actively says they welcome GLBT, people can boycott. Everyone has free speech and right to patronize whomever they wish.
Personally, I find the state anti-discrimination laws to be more govt than i wish. However, I also think Lester Maddux had a right to choose not to serve African Americans, even though I personnally would never buy anything from such a person. However, state anti-discrimination laws are the law, and my personal opinion is irrelevant, except to disinguish the laws effect on christian bakers from the boycott's effect.
If businesses would put out signs that tells us they refuse to service certain people, I'd be all for that. Then when I see the sign, I can make my choice and not go in there or do business with them. That would probably be to easy though.
Why would it occur to someone that because someone believes in God they are also homophobic? I dont get the connection. I know plenty of people that belive in God and have no issue with gay people other than to disagree with their lifestyle.
It is because we believe in God that we are seen as homophobic. I have no issue with homosexuals as far as the person is concerned, but I will not capitulate the tenets of my faith to beck to the every whim of theirs that I see as sinful. If marriage is about devotion, so is my faith. I am devoted to my Lord God and his ways, and I will not stray from him for the likes of anyone.
But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?
Refusing to participate in a same sex wedding isn't rape. If you want to use rape, the Christians forced to participate in a same sex wedding against their will were spiritually raped.