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.
Quote: Originally Posted by Katzndogz
...So what happens TODAY, if a job applicant shows up for an interview and refuses the job solely because the boss is gay? If there is a civil right to the labor of another can the applicant be forced to work there?
There's a big big difference between saying you won't do something because someone is gay, and not doing it because it violates the religious teachings of your faith. That's one critical thing all of you pro gay folks missed.
If I openly discriminated against gays, I would not be a good Christian. I don't stop them from enjoying the rights I have, the things I have, the freedom that I have. They are Americans just as I am. But I will not in a quintillion years violate the teachings of my faith just to sate the whims of a homosexual. I can be friendly and tolerant of them, but I will not capitulate to them.
But then again, you don't mind placing unfair obligations on people, do you?
Wrong, the baker called them "an abomination to the Lord". He could have said their relationship was an abomination to the Lord, but instead insulted them.
It is not a personal sin to treat everyone equally. Where do some Christians get the idea that hating people for what they are is "Christian"?
Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"? Some Christians need some introspection. They are putting themselves on the same level as God.
According to the story I read, the Christian was very polite. It was someone on site who used that phrase, "abomination to The Lord". Do you have a link to back this up. Mine was the article in the Blaze presented earlier. I am unsure which version is true, but I think the abomination statement is seeped in hyperbole and probably not what actually happened.
Immie
If it was in The Blaze it must be true...
It would seem that a gay couple would more naturally be drawn to a business that said "same sex weddings a specialty. Large selection of same sex cake toppers". Rather than make a point of looking for someone who might object. A decent person, that is a person with a sense of decency, would not ask an overtly Christian business to make the cake in the first place. If only not to give those nasty Christians their patronage.
There were five reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week, who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.
WW Asks - I was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very simple: just a green pentagram. Wed like to pick it up sometime that afternoon, before the bonfire. Itll be for about 30 people.
Sweet Cake says - For 30 people we have a couple options... We have two kind of cakes you could have. About the diagram you want on the cake, Im not sure how much extra that would be.
Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make
It is revealing once the Sweet Cakey bakers found out they were caught going against another tenant of the Christian faith, they contacted Lars Larson to cry victimhood some more.
"Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we would even try to entrap a business and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson. "
And different bakeries. Game over. Screw off. WWeek is a pro gay website too... you really think they would do honest reporting? Yes, I knew you'd try that. You dishonest prick!
People have the right to refuse to buy from a place.
and that's fine
the fact liberals went national with this is the real evil and tyranny. You got what you wanted, every little business now knows they must submit to any leftist ideal or else.
grats, you got what you wanted and now you don't like it. Tough, this is who you are and what team you support is.
People have a right to refuse to buy.
Businesses do not have a right to refuse to sell. This is actually black letter law.
Which explains why states never go after people for refusing service.
Wait, it actually makes you an idiot.
Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?
Yes.
Do we have the right to boycott and picket their business in retaliation?
Yes.
Customers have the right to be bigots. We knew that all along. They just don't exercise that right enough. Targeting a few gay owned businesses should do quite nicely. Nothing nasty just identifying the business as gay owned and let everyone make up their own minds.
Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?
Yes.
Do we have the right to boycott and picket their business in retaliation?
Yes.
Customers have the right to be bigots. We knew that all along. They just don't exercise that right enough. Targeting a few gay owned businesses should do quite nicely. Nothing nasty just identifying the business as gay owned and let everyone make up their own minds.
Obviously that is incorrect as this couple wanted very much to do business with this bakery, even to the point of denying what most of us consider a fundamental right... that being the freedom of association. Now I am a Christian, but I am one who believes that this baker is wrong in not serving "sinners". Christ never taught such garbage and would have gladly used his carpentry skills for them had he been asked.
By the way, if they were set on not serving sinners, they would have to close up shop because they could not serve any of us.
Immie
I appreciate your comments but can you explain the "freedom of association" as a fundamental right? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. The Freedom of Association mentioned in the BOR dealt with actually forming "associations" such as political parties, trade unions, etc. It had nothing to do with personal realtionships or the interaction between a business owner and a customer.
That would be the association I am talking about. There are all types of relationships not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean that because they are not mentioned, we do not have the very same freedom as those dealt with?
As for business relationships and the idea that a business must serve all customers if they advertise their wares, I have asked this before and no one seems to answer. Should a black gun shop owner be required to sell weapons and ammo to individuals who enter his shop wearing sheets and hoods? I do not think so. Should a vendor of surgical equipment who happens to be pro-life be required to sell scalpels and other equipment to an abortion clinic? Again, I do not think so. Should a movie theater which has consistently shown family oriented films and never shown anything above a PG rating suddenly be forced to rent the rights of an X-Rated film and show it on its screen? Again I do not think so.
Should a cathouse be required to serve the vice squad that busted its employees last week come Friday night? Don't think so.
Public accommodation laws are wrong. The government should not interfere with the rights of business owners to choose whom to serve. I say that knowing full well that someone will say, "should a white bigot be allowed not to serve black people"? As disgusting as I think that is, I have to say yes. I also realize that if that were the case we would still be the backward country we were 50 years ago. I simply believe that even a bigot has the right to be a bigot. No matter how sorry I feel for them.
Immie
Obviously that is incorrect as this couple wanted very much to do business with this bakery, even to the point of denying what most of us consider a fundamental right... that being the freedom of association. Now I am a Christian, but I am one who believes that this baker is wrong in not serving "sinners". Christ never taught such garbage and would have gladly used his carpentry skills for them had he been asked.
By the way, if they were set on not serving sinners, they would have to close up shop because they could not serve any of us.
Immie
I appreciate your comments but can you explain the "freedom of association" as a fundamental right? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. The Freedom of Association mentioned in the BOR dealt with actually forming "associations" such as political parties, trade unions, etc. It had nothing to do with personal realtionships or the interaction between a business owner and a customer.
That would be the association I am talking about. There are all types of relationships not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean that because they are not mentioned, we do not have the very same freedom as those dealt with?
As for business relationships and the idea that a business must serve all customers if they advertise their wares, I have asked this before and no one seems to answer. Should a black gun shop owner be required to sell weapons and ammo to individuals who enter his shop wearing sheets and hoods? I do not think so. Should a vendor of surgical equipment who happens to be pro-life be required to sell scalpels and other equipment to an abortion clinic? Again, I do not think so. Should a movie theater which has consistently shown family oriented films and never shown anything above a PG rating suddenly be forced to rent the rights of an X-Rated film and show it on its screen? Again I do not think so.
Should a cathouse be required to serve the vice squad that busted its employees last week come Friday night? Don't think so.
Public accommodation laws are wrong. The government should not interfere with the rights of business owners to choose whom to serve. I say that knowing full well that someone will say, "should a white bigot be allowed not to serve black people"? As disgusting as I think that is, I have to say yes. I also realize that if that were the case we would still be the backward country we were 50 years ago. I simply believe that even a bigot has the right to be a bigot. No matter how sorry I feel for them.
Immie
According to the story I read, the Christian was very polite. It was someone on site who used that phrase, "abomination to The Lord". Do you have a link to back this up. Mine was the article in the Blaze presented earlier. I am unsure which version is true, but I think the abomination statement is seeped in hyperbole and probably not what actually happened.
Immie
If it was in The Blaze it must be true...
That is not what I said but it appears a lot more realistic than the shit presented stated he called them an "abomination to The Lord" especially one that does not seem to have been backed up by anything whatsoever.
Immie
there is a way to be able to discriminate in your business.
you have to declare you business a private club and only allow in members.
all members must be served.
but if you don't blacks, Jews, gays, whatever...all you have to do is not invite them to be members.
I appreciate your comments but can you explain the "freedom of association" as a fundamental right? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. The Freedom of Association mentioned in the BOR dealt with actually forming "associations" such as political parties, trade unions, etc. It had nothing to do with personal realtionships or the interaction between a business owner and a customer.
That would be the association I am talking about. There are all types of relationships not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean that because they are not mentioned, we do not have the very same freedom as those dealt with?
As for business relationships and the idea that a business must serve all customers if they advertise their wares, I have asked this before and no one seems to answer. Should a black gun shop owner be required to sell weapons and ammo to individuals who enter his shop wearing sheets and hoods? I do not think so. Should a vendor of surgical equipment who happens to be pro-life be required to sell scalpels and other equipment to an abortion clinic? Again, I do not think so. Should a movie theater which has consistently shown family oriented films and never shown anything above a PG rating suddenly be forced to rent the rights of an X-Rated film and show it on its screen? Again I do not think so.
Should a cathouse be required to serve the vice squad that busted its employees last week come Friday night? Don't think so.
Public accommodation laws are wrong. The government should not interfere with the rights of business owners to choose whom to serve. I say that knowing full well that someone will say, "should a white bigot be allowed not to serve black people"? As disgusting as I think that is, I have to say yes. I also realize that if that were the case we would still be the backward country we were 50 years ago. I simply believe that even a bigot has the right to be a bigot. No matter how sorry I feel for them.
Immie
There is no law against being a bigot or thinking bigoted thoughts. there are however laws about how a public business conducts itself and one of them is that one cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion and yes, sexual orientation.
Go ahead and be the biggest bigot in private you want, but once you start a public business who serves the general public and put those bigotries into action in that business you are breaking the law.
And if you don't like the law change it or move your business to country more to your sentiments...like Russia.
Do you really think that couple could have delivered a multi-tiered cake to their own wedding? Are you stupid?
It's really not that hard to put a wedding cake together
What, have you ever tried? That's hilarious!
I can tell you that it doesn't matter what is and what is not sin.
What matters is that each of us who believe in unalienable rights is entitled to define for ourselves what is and what is not sin. What is and is not to be condoned. If we are truly free, we can hold whatever beliefs, convictions, principles, ideals, hopes, dreams, or concepts we hold with impunity, whether anybody else shares them or not.
If it is okay for you to destroy a Christian couple's reputation and livelihood because they do not condone gay marriage, why would it not be okay for them to destroy your reputation and livelihood because you do? Or for any other conviction or belief you hold that they don't share?
We cannot be free if we do not allow others to be as free. To destroy a person's livelihood purely because you disagree with their beliefs or convictions on something is pure evil.
I see it as no different if they had said they won't serve Black people.
And I agree they had the right to refuse but now they have to live with the consequences of that decision.
And the consequences for bigotry in today's society are severe.
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.
And if you think it is okay to destroy somebody's livelihood for what YOU define as bigotry, then it is okay if they destroy your livelihood for what THEY define as bigotry?
If holding unpopular beliefs is justification for having one's business destroyed due to the bigotry of others, then we have no freedom left in America. Because to condemn and intentionally destroy people for what they believe is the worst form of bigotry.
And freedom loving people will condemn it every time because it is pure evil.
That would be the association I am talking about. There are all types of relationships not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean that because they are not mentioned, we do not have the very same freedom as those dealt with?
As for business relationships and the idea that a business must serve all customers if they advertise their wares, I have asked this before and no one seems to answer. Should a black gun shop owner be required to sell weapons and ammo to individuals who enter his shop wearing sheets and hoods? I do not think so. Should a vendor of surgical equipment who happens to be pro-life be required to sell scalpels and other equipment to an abortion clinic? Again, I do not think so. Should a movie theater which has consistently shown family oriented films and never shown anything above a PG rating suddenly be forced to rent the rights of an X-Rated film and show it on its screen? Again I do not think so.
Should a cathouse be required to serve the vice squad that busted its employees last week come Friday night? Don't think so.
Public accommodation laws are wrong. The government should not interfere with the rights of business owners to choose whom to serve. I say that knowing full well that someone will say, "should a white bigot be allowed not to serve black people"? As disgusting as I think that is, I have to say yes. I also realize that if that were the case we would still be the backward country we were 50 years ago. I simply believe that even a bigot has the right to be a bigot. No matter how sorry I feel for them.
Immie
There is no law against being a bigot or thinking bigoted thoughts. there are however laws about how a public business conducts itself and one of them is that one cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion and yes, sexual orientation.
Go ahead and be the biggest bigot in private you want, but once you start a public business who serves the general public and put those bigotries into action in that business you are breaking the law.
And if you don't like the law change it or move your business to country more to your sentiments...like Russia.
I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?
I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.
In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.
I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.
It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?
Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!
Immie
Ham sammich!There is no law against being a bigot or thinking bigoted thoughts. there are however laws about how a public business conducts itself and one of them is that one cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion and yes, sexual orientation.
Go ahead and be the biggest bigot in private you want, but once you start a public business who serves the general public and put those bigotries into action in that business you are breaking the law.
And if you don't like the law change it or move your business to country more to your sentiments...like Russia.
I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?
I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.
In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.
I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.
It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?
Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!
Immie
I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.
Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?
I see it as no different if they had said they won't serve Black people.
And I agree they had the right to refuse but now they have to live with the consequences of that decision.
And the consequences for bigotry in today's society are severe.
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.
And if you think it is okay to destroy somebody's livelihood for what YOU define as bigotry, then it is okay if they destroy your livelihood for what THEY define as bigotry?
If holding unpopular beliefs is justification for having one's business destroyed due to the bigotry of others, then we have no freedom left in America. Because to condemn and intentionally destroy people for what they believe is the worst form of bigotry.
And freedom loving people will condemn it every time because it is pure evil.
Baking a cake is not participating in a marriage it is baking a cake.
