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

[Alfalfa]

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?

Ham sammich!

Because.

It's hilarious, I think I've seen that one at least 5 times on 5 different websites. It's like they get all their talking points from the same website...probably Glenn beck.

For those unaware the question is "Will Jewish Deli's be forced to serve bacon and ham sandwiches now because someone demands it?"

Fer christ's sake....

 

[Immanuel]

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

It's in the original formal complaint made by the lesbians.

They stated it as truthful under penalty of perjury.

He said it, unless you are calling what the lesbian said under oath a lie.

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.

I hope this multi-quote worked right. I am replying to Mertex, Paperview and Alfalfa. I have not seen the links provided, but will take your word for it that the statement was in the links and in the complaint and apologize if I was wrong in my statements.

I hope that comment was not made and will note that just because it is in a complaint does not make it true. Evidence must be presented verifying that it was said and at this moment it is "he said, she said". I will note that if it is not true, this not be the first time someone lied on an affidavit.

From what I have read, the bakery has stated they are willing to serve the gay community but that they draw the line at gay weddings. I have to say, I do not begrudge them that right.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa closes storefront

I will also note that the OP article mentioned some pretty disgusting comments by the homosexual community against the owners of the bakery, but I guess this is acceptable in this case because the bakery owners had it coming. It seems those threats and comments are being ignored here.

By the way, for Alfalfa's benefit, BDBoop is not a right wing fanatic. In fact she's not a right winger at all.

Immie

edit: crap, I didn't get the quote thing right this time. I was including Mertex's post number 822 and thank you three for the information.

 

[Immanuel]

Would you spend money in such establishments? I wouldn't. I'd stay away and so would others. Right now we don't know whether an owner is a bigot asshole or not. Why give your money to a bigoted asshole?

I guess you weren't around in the 50's? Businesses had such signs, and people still patronized them. Today, there are plenty of people that would do business with such bigots because they are the same as the bigots.

The film brought to light how prevalent racism and discrimination practices were rooted in Texas since the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Mexican-Americans have been treated as second class citizens in Texas and the U.S. since then. The film showed visible signs that read “no dogs, no Negros, no Mexicans” and “we serve whites only, no Spanish or Mexicans.” It’s amazing to think that this kind of bigotry and racism was tolerated.

Read more: No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes
No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes


Part of the sign reads: "Halloween 2011. No blacks welcomed to trick or treat."
Racist Sign Sparks Outrage in Northeast El Paso | KTSM News Channel 9 | News, Weather and Sports | El Paso, Las Cruces, Juarez

I deal in historical paper a lot, and I have seen a lot of brochures,ads and signs where the owner states clearly "No Irish need apply" and "Hebrews are not welcome."

Then of course, the really sick ones, saying "N-- 's stay out."

Historic? As in from the late 1800's? How do those apply to today?

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Yep. If you allow people to say they won't serve gays, then it's okay for people to say they won't serve anyone they don't like the look of or don't like their lifestyle. Say, for example, I don't like tall people and refuse to deal with them, or redheads. Or Native Americans, or hippies, or bikers, or anyone under 18 or over 60. It opens up a whole can of worms. That's why there is a law against discrimination. If you want to go into business and deal with the public, you need to deal equally with all the public. What are these ultra religious Christians going to do if a Muslim couple comes into their bakery and wants a cake with Islamic characteristics on it? Refuse to make it because they don't like Islam?

Why is anything you said a problem that requires government intervention?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's really not that hard to put a wedding cake together

What, have you ever tried? That's hilarious!

How many times have I said in this thread that my aunt used to make wedding cakes and I would deliver them with her?

At least 3.
That's how I know that as a baker you do not attend the wedding or the reception.

But you people who have never delivered wedding cakes seem to think that the baker must attend the ceremony and the reception.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]: already told you that's a lie. Don't try that argument again.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's really not that hard to put a wedding cake together

What, have you ever tried? That's hilarious!

How many times have I said in this thread that my aunt used to make wedding cakes and I would deliver them with her?

At least 3.
That's how I know that as a baker you do not attend the wedding or the reception.

But you people who have never delivered wedding cakes seem to think that the baker must attend the ceremony and the reception.

Nobody has said that at all. But you do have to have your truck on the premises. You do have to be there to set up the cake. And if somebody does not wish to go to somebody else's premises, for ANY reason, they should not be forced to do so. Any law that would require them to do so is a law that is bad law.

Why is it that everybody in the free world is allowed choice and the right to say what is on their mind except for conservatives and Christians. What kind of bigots think that a Christian baker should lose his/her livelihood because they do not wish to provide services anywhere?

To destroy a person's livelihood purely because they hold convictions you disagree with is among the worst kind of evil.

 

[paperview]

I guess you weren't around in the 50's? Businesses had such signs, and people still patronized them. Today, there are plenty of people that would do business with such bigots because they are the same as the bigots.

The film brought to light how prevalent racism and discrimination practices were rooted in Texas since the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Mexican-Americans have been treated as second class citizens in Texas and the U.S. since then. The film showed visible signs that read “no dogs, no Negros, no Mexicans” and “we serve whites only, no Spanish or Mexicans.” It’s amazing to think that this kind of bigotry and racism was tolerated.

Read more: No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes
No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes


Part of the sign reads: "Halloween 2011. No blacks welcomed to trick or treat."
Racist Sign Sparks Outrage in Northeast El Paso | KTSM News Channel 9 | News, Weather and Sports | El Paso, Las Cruces, Juarez

I deal in historical paper a lot, and I have seen a lot of brochures,ads and signs where the owner states clearly "No Irish need apply" and "Hebrews are not welcome."

Then of course, the really sick ones, saying "N-- 's stay out."

Historic? As in from the late 1800's? How do those apply to today?

Immie

No, From the 1940's and 50's.

The Irish ones not so much, those are from earlier, the other ones, yep. Not that long ago.

It's applicable because that's what *did* happen in America....not that long ago.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys don't think it's funny when people make fun of or criticize gay people, but you seem not to mind when it comes to making fun of or criticizing Christians. Why the double standard?

Are you referring to the video that was posted that mocks your religion? I realise it was offensive to you, but where in the video was there any false information. Sounds like this person did their research.

I didn't get all the way through it, mostly because the very first thing she said is wrong, but thanks for proving you aren't any smarter than she is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is nothing Christian about bigotry.

I knew you were arrogant, but telling me Jesus was wrong when he told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more really takes the cake.

 

[Alfalfa]

Did BDBoop post?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe that video could have been called Innocence of Christians.

Advice:

And another thing, if I started railing on gay people right here and now, where would your thick skin be? I didn't think so. Don't you dare lecture me.

lol

Gays and lesbians have been called every name conceivable, compared to murderers, thieves, dog fuckers, pedophiles, -- and get blamed for the entire general breakdown of families and society, accused of 'going after their children,' every form of debauchery known to man is laid at our doorstep;

I've had folks here call me "less than human," a child of Satan, worse than terrorists and have even had prominent television pastors blame ME for 911.

I've got pretty thick skin. Don't you lecture me.

You don't know what a thick skin is.

Hint, it isn't talking about being called names and claiming a self righteous demeanor as a result.

 

[Dot Com]

But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.

You do realize that SOCON's frequently call for boycotts of businesses they perceive as "gay friendly" right?

The boycott is not just the tool of the liberals.



>>>>>

Yeah FoxFyre Does that make the SOCONS (you) "evil" as well?

 

[Alfalfa]

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.

Yep. If you allow people to say they won't serve gays, then it's okay for people to say they won't serve anyone they don't like the look of or don't like their lifestyle. Say, for example, I don't like tall people and refuse to deal with them, or redheads. Or Native Americans, or hippies, or bikers, or anyone under 18 or over 60. It opens up a whole can of worms. That's why there is a law against discrimination. If you want to go into business and deal with the public, you need to deal equally with all the public. What are these ultra religious Christians going to do if a Muslim couple comes into their bakery and wants a cake with Islamic characteristics on it? Refuse to make it because they don't like Islam?

Hmm, nope. Just race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation (in some states). No can of worms is opened, there is no slippery slope.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery, wife-beating, condemning "witches" to death, denying women the vote, or even any position of power; it was used to justify wars, genocide, segregation, child abuse and the divine right of kings. I could go on and on.
The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against homosexuals in the US.

Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny rights to others.

Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how ridiculous it is, and things change.

150 years ago, slavery was an established societal norm.

100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established societal norm.

50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


And 50 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage will be an established societal norm.

That is something you can take to the bank.

And, if there was no Bible, all that stuff would still have happened.

The part you seem to be forgetting is how people used the Bible to fight against all those things. Is that because you hate the truth?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Based on other comments alleged to be made by the bakery owners and ones they have not denied, I have no reason to believe they didn't make this comment as alleged by others. Personally, I'm surprised they didn't go further like "you're going to hell!".

I haven't seen you deny saying that you are a scum eating slug, does that mean I should assume you are?

 

[paperview]

What, have you ever tried? That's hilarious!

How many times have I said in this thread that my aunt used to make wedding cakes and I would deliver them with her?

At least 3.
That's how I know that as a baker you do not attend the wedding or the reception.

But you people who have never delivered wedding cakes seem to think that the baker must attend the ceremony and the reception.

@Foxfyre: already told you that's a lie. Don't try that argument again.

Hear ye Hear ye.

Foxfyre has been anointed the spokesperson for all wedding cakes straight and gay, that have ever happened in all of America.

So don't you dare try that again.

 

[paperview]

Did BDBoop post?

She's not here now, but heads up: She's a good 'un.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Actually, as wrong as I think Public Accommodation laws are in situations such as this, I do not think I would want them repealed. Even though I think a bigot should have the right to be a bigot and to be run out of town by his customers, I honestly don't think we (the customers) would do it.

I think the bakery has the right to refuse service for a same sex wedding. I think the black gun shop owner has the right to refuse to serve the KKK. I think the photographer has the right not to photograph a gay wedding. On the other hand, I do not think a restaurant owner should have the right to refuse service to blacks or vice versa nor to the gay community, nor hispanics, Jewish people, Asians etc. Repealing Public Accommodation Laws would open all of that up, but there should be some common sense applied here. A muslim should not be required to cater a Christian wedding. A pro-life medical supplier should not be required to supply equipment to an abortion clinic... etc. etc. etc. Common sense can be applied in these cases.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's really not that hard to put a wedding cake together

What, have you ever tried? That's hilarious!

How many times have I said in this thread that my aunt used to make wedding cakes and I would deliver them with her?

At least 3.
That's how I know that as a baker you do not attend the wedding or the reception.

But you people who have never delivered wedding cakes seem to think that the baker must attend the ceremony and the reception.

You seem to think that them not going to the wedding somehow justifies them being forced to sell the cake.

 

[Immanuel]

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

Based on other comments alleged to be made by the bakery owners and ones they have not denied, I have no reason to believe they didn't make this comment as alleged by others. Personally, I'm surprised they didn't go further like "you're going to hell!".

You realize, I hope, that they were probably instructed by their attorney to not make any statements whatsoever in this matter, because opposing attorney have the knack of twisting your words no matter what you say.

Immie