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

[Foxfyre]

Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others. Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who? Who did this evil thing that you keep accusing people of? Who is this anybody? Who are you accusing? Why are you making this statement again and again and again?

Don't feign ignorance. A plethora of gay activist groups and militant gay rights groups badgered their vendors into breaking contracts with them. This in turn dealt a severe if not fatal blow to their revenues as a business. It is an underhanded tactic but an effective one. This, all for standing up for their own convictions. It is an utterly tyrannical tactic, such tyranny is what our founders fought to smite from history once and for all.

Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right? Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians

Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.

When did I suggest all gays were domestic terrorists?

Lets have a little history lesson shall we?

The KKK was founded by Democrats after the Civil War. Not only did their values conflict with what the Bible teaches, they outright twisted it to their own will.

And the Nazis are founded on a cult like belief that one day there will be a glorious revival of the Aryan nation, a "reich" as it is known. The Nazis were never once concerned with following the Christian faith, but perverting it, just as the KKK did.

But there is one particular incident which occurred in 2008 at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan involving a still existent militant gay rights group known as "Bash Back!"

On November 9, 2008 a band of about 30 homosexuals stormed the church during services shouting “Jesus was a homo” on a megaphone and carrying an upside-down pink cross. They distributed fliers to passersby, threw condoms at parishioners and set off the fire alarms.

There are gay people out there that espouse these tactics, which include by are not limited to trying to put someone out of business for their beliefs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others. Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.

Well, perhaps I ended RKM's little lie that he called an argument. It is evident to me that such people work to smear Christians instead of directly confronting them with a cogent argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others. Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.

Well, perhaps I ended RKM's little lie that he called an argument. It is evident to me that such people work to smear Christians instead of directly confronting them with a cogent argument.

I don't require other members to embrace or endorse or even represent Christianity accurately in order to be honorable members of USMB. But to intentionally, deliberately, and repeatedly misrepresent the position and argument of others out of pure malice--that is not honorable. And those who do it are invariably bigots.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again RKM is utterly dishonest in representing the views of others. Not worth the band width to argue with him and I kick myself every time I allow him to bait me into responding.

Well, perhaps I ended RKM's little lie that he called an argument. It is evident to me that such people work to smear Christians instead of directly confronting them with a cogent argument.

I don't require other members to embrace or endorse or even represent Christianity accurately in order to be honorable members of USMB. But to intentionally, deliberately, and repeatedly misrepresent the position and argument of others out of pure malice--that is not honorable. And those who do it are invariably bigots.

There is no more truer truth than that, Fox. And alas, I do not force my faith on others. The Bible tells me not to, if the person's heart will not allow them to, "dust off thy feet" and move on as it says.

 

[Alfalfa]

Who? Who did this evil thing that you keep accusing people of? Who is this anybody? Who are you accusing? Why are you making this statement again and again and again?

Don't feign ignorance. A plethora of gay activist groups and militant gay rights groups badgered their vendors into breaking contracts with them. This in turn dealt a severe if not fatal blow to their revenues as a business. It is an underhanded tactic but an effective one. This, all for standing up for their own convictions. It is an utterly tyrannical tactic, such tyranny is what our founders fought to smite from history once and for all.

Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right? Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians

Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.

Let's not forget it was white, southern xstians who engaged in, supported and propagated slavery and justified it in their churches via bible scripture.

Slavery was perfectly okay by god in the OT.

Xtians never learn, the always have to be dragged kicking and screaming...sometimes suing, into morality and virtue.

 

[Foxfyre]

And then of course there is the non sequitur, straw man, and red herring arguments that some will always throw into the mix and completely ignore the point of the O.P.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Don't feign ignorance. A plethora of gay activist groups and militant gay rights groups badgered their vendors into breaking contracts with them. This in turn dealt a severe if not fatal blow to their revenues as a business. It is an underhanded tactic but an effective one. This, all for standing up for their own convictions. It is an utterly tyrannical tactic, such tyranny is what our founders fought to smite from history once and for all.

Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right? Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians

Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.

Let's not forget it was white, southern xstians who engaged in, supported and propagated slavery and justified it in their churches via bible scripture.

Slavery was perfectly okay by god in the OT.

Xtians never learn, the always have to be dragged kicking and screaming...sometimes suing, into morality and virtue.

Case in point.

Since when is it okay to force someone into adhering to YOUR morals and virtues? Is it not gay people who say that Christians are forcing their morals and virtues on THEM? How bemusing.

Slavery was way different in the Bible than what you read about in the Civil War. Perhaps you should do a little research. RKM knows what I'm talking about. He made the same false accusation and was pounded into the ground for it.

And Democrats, for which I know you espouse as one, were the ones who founded the KKK, and encouraged open discrimination against Blacks as far back as the Civil War. Nowhere in the Bible does it teach to be openly discriminate to someone. "Love one another" it says. Another good example is the story of the Good Samaritan. In Jesus' time Samaritans were viewed unfavorably. Given that two people (a priest and a Levite) passed him by and offered no help, the Samaritan was the one who saved his life. This teaches that no matter who or what someone is, you help them in a time of need.

 

[BDBoop]

Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right? Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians

Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.

The Homosexual Agenda Revealed!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where? I'm looking and I can't find it.

Look, if you don't want to link it, just say so.

I showed my court case.

You link us up to your where "Public accommodation laws...force[d] them to serve the KKK if they show up. " You announced proudly "I have an actual case to back my position up" <-- Your words.

But now you don't want to show your proof. Figgers.

Do you know how to use Google?

Let me google that for you

Holy crap.

Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?

Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html

And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!

Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.

WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html

World Watcher couldn't argue his way out of a kindergarten class full of deaf mutes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so. According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past. They simply drew the line at the wedding.

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie

Not true as a component of the law. The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation. Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

Cakes: If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants. The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation. It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party. If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

KKK: If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white." Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race. If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case. On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities. Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer. In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>

Explained very well.

Does it change the fundamental fact that you are wrong when you said a photographer cannot be forced to attend a wedding they objected to?

Doesn't that make you wrong, period?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They can claim anything they want, the problem would be they would have to prove that the business turned them down based on race and not as a political organization (which is not a protected class).

All the shop owner would have to do is start calling white clients to the stand and after the first dozen or so witness with the next 100-200 waiting in the wings to testify, the judge would probably make a summary judgement in the defendants favor.


>>>>

True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so. According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past. They simply drew the line at the wedding.

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie

Not true as a component of the law. The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation. Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

Cakes: If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants. The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation. It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party. If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

KKK: If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white." Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race. If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case. On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities. Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer. In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>

If it was that simple the baker could tell the couple that they won't bake the cake because it violates their free speech right to not say something nice about gay weddings. The fact that the court actually said that they can't do that proves that the court was arguing in circles to justify something wrong.

Which is why the law is wrong, period.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If that race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.



>>>>

Why does everyone keep pretending that the days of widespread discrimination were not enforced by the government, even if the business objected? It was AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW to treat blacks the same as whites.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

So you're a bigot if you boycott a bigot?

Just like you're a sinner if you bake a cake for a gay couple?

How do you brainwashed Christians even get out of bed without putting your soul in danger of hellfire?

Parochial bigoted belief systems have no place in the modern world.

How the fuck did you get that out of what she said?

What makes it acceptable for you to force your religion on others?

How the fuck do you walk a straight line?

Your beliefs have no place in the ancient, modern, or the future world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Citing the 1st Amend as an excuse for the religious and religious institutions violating the law is the height of ignorance and desperation.

Not in the same universe that contains you.

 

[paperview]

When the first Public Accommodation Laws were passed (CRA64), there was a great deal of religious belief (mostly in the south, but also in other parts of the country) that "race-mixing" was directly in conflict with their religion. Indeed it was against the law to marry another race in a number of states.

In fact, the judge who upheld Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute in Loving v. Virginia cited the bible and noted God had put the races on separate continents as proof “that he did not intend for the races to mix.” It was literally an appeal to divine authority. Thankfully it was not many years (three to be exact) the Supreme Court would find laws against interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, it was most certainly a "deeply held religious conviction" to some (and still is) that would allow them to discriminate in exactly the same way as the couple in this instance -- that is, a baker refusing to "be a part of this wedding."

How many would uphold that religious belief as Supreme today? With the baker being allowed to say "I don't believe in mixed race marriages, to me it is a sin?" How has it worked for those who have tried to use it?

As I noted in an earlier post of mine, bigots are free to discriminate, they however need to find a way to be clever about it. In Elane photography, for example, just saying "Sorry, booked up" or some other reason to not produce evidence you are actively discriminating. Same with the bakers.

I'm certain it goes on all the time today, and did in the past for the ones against "race-mixing" and integration for religious reasons. So the message is clear: you want to be a bigot, be one. Just be clever about it.
This does not violate your religious principles.

Unless your purpose is to find an excuse to insult and offend those potential customers you think have cherry-picked as sinners.

Which at its base, I think, is exactly what some of these religious objectors want to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To repeat:

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

Let me point out why you are still an idiot.

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

There is a difference between laws that prohibit an action from laws that require an action. The laws you are trying to defend require an action.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

And, also, too:


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

Don't like it? CHANGE the Public Accommodation Laws.

Since I am arguing that public accommodation laws are wrong, and your only defense is that they are the law, you are an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law. And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.

But there are some of us who hold the conviction of our beliefs apart from the law and apart from anything the courts or anybody else dictate. We do not form our beliefs and convictions based on what the law is. We would choose to base the law on what our beliefs and convictions are.

Translation: You would make it legal to starve gays out of christian hovels by refusing to sell them goods and services. Is that your idea of a good law? To repeal our civil rights laws?

In a word, yes.

 

[paperview]

From here I would like to point to an excellent article written in the Wake Forest Law Review, which I highly recommend. A few snips follow:

The law sends messages. The antidiscrimination law sends a message that the racial caste system, or a similar one based on sexual orientation, is wrong and illegal. Applying the law to particular acts of discrimination emphasizes the message. The message sent by allowing religious exemptions is that discrimination is wrong and illegal except when it is right and legal. It is illegal and wrong unless your deeply held religious beliefs support the caste system and, by one version, unless the victim of discrimination can find a convenient alternative. The right to discriminate can convey a message (at least in certain circumstances) that it is right to do so.

General application is important. What would the result have been in the segregated South if exemptions based on religious convictions had been in place? The result would have been even worse if all “moral” objectors to integration were also included.

Conclusion

The best way to think about the claim that gay marriage requires expanded exemptions from existing laws for religious discriminators is in the larger context of both race and gender discrimination and in the larger context of discrimination against gays outside of gay marriage—as well as in the case of discrimination against people in same-sex marriages. The racial analogy may help some see why the harms of discrimination against gays are substantial and why broad exemptions are problematic. If so, this Essay will have been a modest success.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays | Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context | Wake Forest Law Review

^ Just some thought food for munching.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the first Public Accommodation Laws were passed (CRA64), there was a great deal of religious belief (mostly in the south, but also in other parts of the country) that "race-mixing" was directly in conflict with their religion. Indeed it was against the law to marry another race in a number of states.

In fact, the judge who upheld Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute in Loving v. Virginia cited the bible and noted God had put the races on separate continents as proof “that he did not intend for the races to mix.” It was literally an appeal to divine authority. Thankfully it was not many years (three to be exact) the Supreme Court would find laws against interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, it was most certainly a "deeply held religious conviction" to some (and still is) that would allow them to discriminate in exactly the same way as the couple in this instance -- that is, a baker refusing to "be a part of this wedding."

How many would uphold that religious belief as Supreme today? With the baker being allowed to say "I don't believe in mixed race marriages, to me it is a sin?" How has it worked for those who have tried to use it?

As I noted in an earlier post of mine, bigots are free to discriminate, they however need to find a way to be clever about it. In Elane photography, for example, just saying "Sorry, booked up" or some other reason to not produce evidence you are actively discriminating. Same with the bakers.

I'm certain it goes on all the time today, and did in the past for the ones against "race-mixing" and integration for religious reasons. So the message is clear: you want to be a bigot, be one. Just be clever about it.
This does not violate your religious principles.

Unless your purpose is to find an excuse to insult and offend those potential customers you think have cherry-picked as sinners.

Which at its base, I think, is exactly what some of these religious objectors want to do.

Funny how I am the bigot because I want everyone to be free.

Show me anything in the Bible that backs up the assertion that God wanted people to stay separate. That belief was not religious in nature, it was based on what was then considered science. I suggest you look up eugenics, but only if you are prepared to have your entire universe upset. Alternatively, you could remain a bigot, and refuse to let history and facts stand in the way of your bigotry.