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

[TemplarKormac]

Not to mention child molesters and rapists.

Like I told BDBoop, if you are judging the entire religion based on the actions of those whose actions don't represent Christianity, you are foolish and making a grave error. And speaking of hypocrisy, you gay folks seem to think people are stereotyping you, well just what exactly do you think you're doing to Christians?

Do you say the same thing to right wingers who assume gay men are pedophiles?

Do you see me associating with such people? What part of "I'm a Libertarian" do you not get?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not to mention child molesters and rapists.

Like I told BDBoop, if you are judging the entire religion based on the actions of those whose actions don't represent Christianity, you are foolish and making a grave error. And speaking of hypocrisy, you gay folks seem to think people are stereotyping you, well just what exactly do you think you're doing to Christians?

How about when people stereotype black people?

I see you screaming hypocrisy all the time, but I never see you calling out people who are on the other side.

I let other peoples ignorance speak for itself. And um, try not to move the goalposts. That was very obvious.

Did you even come prepared with an argument?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know, I'm getting kind of sick of gay people. I've never had any real issue with gay people, have had friends who were gay, etc. But the more I hear about them, the more I don't want to hear about them.

Just STFU gay people. I don't care about your aberration.

P.S. To whom it may concern: Look up the word "aberration" before getting on my case. Because if you don't think two men wanting to fondle each other isn't a departure from what is normal or typical, well I don't know what is. Doesn't make it wrong (I have to say that). Just makes it a departure from the norm. As in "abnormal."

Oh, and for those of you who have been trying to peg me as a "liberal" lately...how liberal was this comment?

Blue eyes are an "aberration" by your standard.

Who ever said they WEREN'T? However, there's a big difference between 17% of the population and 3% of the population in terms of "abnormal".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.

When there is no legit reason to oppose marriage, one must wonder if the opposition is not, in fact, homophobia.

FYI, "legit reason" is NOT defined as "reason that Noomi, who is totally irrelevant to American issues anyway, approves of".

But you gotta give those Oregon homosexuals credit: they've definitely created a legitimate reason for people to fear gays if they didn't before.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When there is no legit reason to oppose marriage, one must wonder if the opposition is not, in fact, homophobia.

Not many people oppose marriage. But a marriage is between a man and a woman. Any deviation from that is not a marriage. But, this is what liberals always have to do, change the definition of a word in order to push their agenda.

No it's not. Not in Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire and New York. They all have same sex marriage. It doesn't matter what words you are changing to push your agenda, sir. They are married in the eyes of God, man, and the State. Other states will be falling like dominoes in the face of the federal decisions of this past summer.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but which of those states legalized the recognition of same sex "marriage" by vote among the general population, as opposed to some judge or other official simply declaring it legal whether the people liked it or not?

So basically, you just proved his point right: The only way intolerant, bigoted tyrants like you can get your way is by forcing redefinitions on people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh man, this thread is going to be an absolute firestorm in the morning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible.

That's not what happened. The gay mafia engaged in a hate campaign against the bakery and its customers. That's what happened. They were intimidated out of business. Their customers were intimidated from buying from them.

They will take a break and open up someplace else under a new name, but better educated on how to avoid anti Christian bigots.

Why do I see a whole new type of civil rights lawyers cropping up to advise business owners on how to circumvent these Unconstitutional forced association laws masquerading as "anti-discrimination"?

 

[Noomi]

Having children out of wedlock is a sin, and human cloning is immoral. Tattoos are clearly forbidden. Yet they are happy to support all of those things, just not the gays.

Do we know that the Christian Bakery Owners support such things?

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

Plus he has tattoos, which are clearly condemned in the Bible.

And even if they did...

So, they cherry-picked the Bible for the parts that THEY want to believe-in or to consider operative as God's Law or Moral Law...

Big deal...

In other words, its okay to twist the word of God to suit your own bigoted beliefs?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.

God help us if this becomes the norm in America. We will be no different than militant Islam or the Inquisition who punished heretics in terrible ways.

You have an issue with a community deciding to use or not use a business after the public is made aware of their business practices?

Remember this business closed its retail shop because of no action of the government, they closed because of lost revenue once they discriminatory proactice was made public.

I'm for free market. What is your solution?



(BTW - I'm not joyful about what are basically good people who made a business decision that the community did support were damaged, but choices have consequences.)

>>>>

You were doing SOOOO well, and then you had to start lying to make it okay.

The couple was, and IS, under investigation by the state of Oregon for violation of their "anti-discrimination" law. Furthermore, only in leftist "Die if you disagree with me" land are threats and intimidation considered "the free market" or a "community boycott".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Too late. IT IS the norm in America today.

These people weren't merely forced out of business by a customer boycott. They were being investigated by state agencies. In Colorado it's jail time for exercising religious rights.

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

What you're afraid of has already happened. The next step is the jihadist burning of the Churches.

I think you might be right. If so, this is no longer American, home of the free.

It'd be the same if they refused a black couple, a jewish couple, etc etc etc etc

And again I don't agree with the jail time thing for refusing service just the whining about the consequences of said refusal.

Really? When did homosexuality become a race, ethnicity, or religion, and why wasn't I informed?

For the record, though, I don't think the government has any business mandating forced association for private businesses in THOSE cases, either. I think communities and private individuals have always done a better job of regulating moral behavior than the government, which pretty uniformly has a history of royally fucking it up. See: Jim Crow laws and modern-day "desegregation". Whichever side of the argument the government comes down on, they make an utter dog's dinner out of it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Having children out of wedlock is a sin, and human cloning is immoral. Tattoos are clearly forbidden. Yet they are happy to support all of those things, just not the gays.

Do we know that the Christian Bakery Owners support such things?

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

Plus he has tattoos, which are clearly condemned in the Bible.

And even if they did...

So, they cherry-picked the Bible for the parts that THEY want to believe-in or to consider operative as God's Law or Moral Law...

Big deal...

In other words, its okay to twist the word of God to suit your own bigoted beliefs?

Huffington Post huh? Why aren't any other major news outlets reporting this? Ah yes, it must not be credible enough even for them, Noomi. Who says we're twisting the word of God when we stand up for our faith? But then again, people who know nothing of Christianity seem to suddenly know so much about our God and the Bible.. enough to start launching self righteous and judgmental epithets at us. Wait, how does that work again? Normally, for people who know so much, I'd expect them to be sitting next to me on the pew for a church service!

Before you call me or anyone else a bigot, evaluate the behavior of a liberal and then get back to me.

 

[Noomi]

How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.

Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.

That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.

No the analogy is not flawed it is based on what you said: "Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche."

In each case above it was the individual God (or Gods) that they believed told them, based on a direct communication from God (or their Gods) and their interpretation of their faith (or other convictions) that they were not to do the things asked.

Who are you to decide for them what the teachings of their faith are? Are you assuming that each of them is a Christian? Are you then saying the government should tell them what their individual and personal faith and convictions are?

"A persons religious (or otherwise) convictions" are their personal beliefs.

As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.

So who gets to define whether their beliefs are "a religious objection based on reality"?

What you are saying very clearly, and I'm not trying to twist things, is that "my views" needs special exceptions to the law because my views are based on reality. However I support others persons views not having the same validity as my views and therefore it's OK to usurp their beliefs (or other convictions) and allow the government to then exercise control over whether that private business should be allowed to discriminate.

So if we have these Public Accommodation laws and they apply equally to all business except now there are "special privileges" to exempt religious views. But wait, it's only certain religius views (ones you agree with) that qualify for an exemption. If the owner of an Auto Repair shop says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough. A plumber says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough. A Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough. A hotel owner says his faith says that God (or Gods) don't allow him to rent to people from Ireland - that's not good enough. But if a Christian Bakery says that they won't sell a wedding cake to two people of the same gender - OH, that's OK - I agree with that one.

See that's the problem. By calling for a religious exemption you actually have two problems:

#1 - Anyone can say any act of discrimination is based on their ""religious (or otherwise) convictions" and be exempt from the law. Otherwise you have the government deciding what is and is not a valid religious exemption and according to the Constitution the government is not to "respect" one religion over another.

#2 - Secondly is cedes to the government that it is proper for them to set the conditions under which a private business owner can or cannot refuse service based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, marital statue, veterans status, parental status, etc. The fundamental issue is the usurping of property rights and if those are respected then religion isn't a factor under any conditions and no "special privileges" for faith (or other convictions) are needed.​

As I said previously, what I'm seeing from some is that Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing. It's time to start repealing Public Accommodation laws and let the property rights of the private business have sway - if that happens the whole issue goes away. Ya, there may be an oddball case of discrimination that the government then doesn't poke it's nose into. So what, with liberty there is some pain. Let the consumer then be able to chose whether to support a discriminatory business or not.


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Not so much. There's maybe one vague reference to marriage being between a man and a woman in the new testament that has nothing to do with gays at all. And the old testament just had one mention to my understanding. The new testament is more than just an augmentation of the old testament. Would you say slavery is not a sin because it's in the bible? Just because there is one reference in the old test. to a Jewish law of antiquity, does not make being gay a sin. Should we be sacrificing goats and stoning sinners in the streets?

Theologians for centuries have all agreed that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality, but YOU, in your infinite wisdom, are now going to declare that they're all incorrect, and God's actually okay with it?

Even if it WAS "just one mention", the Bible actually only NEEDS to mention something once for it to be . . . y'know, Biblical. Duh.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't, instead of trying to tell them that it's okay to invalidate their Constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs because they're "wrong" about what they are? Sheesh.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?

What does cloning have to do with this discussion Noomi? And how do you know if they support cloning or not? Can you read minds in Oregon sitting there across the Pacific Ocean in Australia? I have no opinion on cloning, if your really must know. By adhering to the principles set up in the Bible, they are upholding their faith. If you want to know what those are, I suggest you read the Bible. If you don't want to, I suggest you refrain from commenting on people or religions you don't know the first thing about, it makes you look foolish. If you are unwilling to educate yourself about my faith at least, how can you question what we can and cannot stand up for and against?

(Apologies for the forcefulness of this post, Noomi, but if someone gets offended by honesty, well then I guess they don't value honesty too much...)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dear FF: It just means you need a big enough PR budget to "turn the other cheek"
like ChickFilA did. And call people nationwide to support their business in the face of opposition. They even served free food to people protesting in the heat. Answered by "speaking the truth with love" and won more support than anything said in anger.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] I triple dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.

I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.

The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc. Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.

Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind. But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents, children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.

Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.

Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states. You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married. You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman who were not married to anybody else, who were at least a certain age, and who were not too closely related. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.

Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry? Yes it did. Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed. That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.

Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?

If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.

And about marriage, whatever your opinions or beliefs are, as long as they differ from other people's beliefs or values they should be kept in private under religious or community organizations that represent you or them or whoever has differences.

that is just constitutional to keep beliefs separate and out from under the state.

the only part the state has any business in is contracts, for shared custody, estates, etc.
not for the personal relationship which is private. both sides are hypocrites for trying to force their beliefs through the state. they should be pulling the other way toward privitazation and make all sides happy, equally included under the same Constitution.

Aahh, another piss-ignorant quadrant heard from. I swear, I can almost FEEL my IQ drop a couple of points every time this font of duuuhhh talks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.

Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.

That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.

No the analogy is not flawed it is based on what you said: "Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche."

In each case above it was the individual God (or Gods) that they believed told them, based on a direct communication from God (or their Gods) and their interpretation of their faith (or other convictions) that they were not to do the things asked.

Who are you to decide for them what the teachings of their faith are? Are you assuming that each of them is a Christian? Are you then saying the government should tell them what their individual and personal faith and convictions are?

"A persons religious (or otherwise) convictions" are their personal beliefs.

As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.

So who gets to define whether their beliefs are "a religious objection based on reality"?

What you are saying very clearly, and I'm not trying to twist things, is that "my views" needs special exceptions to the law because my views are based on reality. However I support others persons views not having the same validity as my views and therefore it's OK to usurp their beliefs (or other convictions) and allow the government to then exercise control over whether that private business should be allowed to discriminate.

So if we have these Public Accommodation laws and they apply equally to all business except now there are "special privileges" to exempt religious views. But wait, it's only certain religius views (ones you agree with) that qualify for an exemption. If the owner of an Auto Repair shop says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough. A plumber says God (or Gods) told him that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough. A Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough. A hotel owner says his faith says that God (or Gods) don't allow him to rent to people from Ireland - that's not good enough. But if a Christian Bakery says that they won't sell a wedding cake to two people of the same gender - OH, that's OK - I agree with that one.

See that's the problem. By calling for a religious exemption you actually have two problems:

#1 - Anyone can say any act of discrimination is based on their ""religious (or otherwise) convictions" and be exempt from the law. Otherwise you have the government deciding what is and is not a valid religious exemption and according to the Constitution the government is not to "respect" one religion over another.

#2 - Secondly is cedes to the government that it is proper for them to set the conditions under which a private business owner can or cannot refuse service based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, marital statue, veterans status, parental status, etc. The fundamental issue is the usurping of property rights and if those are respected then religion isn't a factor under any conditions and no "special privileges" for faith (or other convictions) are needed.​

As I said previously, what I'm seeing from some is that Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing.


>>>>

I'm sorry, but God stopped giving direct divinations and signs in the days of the Old Testament. So to say God directly impels me or anyone else to do anything is wrong. I will maintain that as the crux of my argument, because I am actually a Christian, I would assume I'm not talking out of my rear end here. Talk about law all you wish, but I don't think God would ask me to discriminate against someone out of hatred, but for a legitimate reason.

11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

Mark 8:11-13

When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret lthe signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

Matthew 16:1-4

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, they should not participate in homosexuality. If they think it's a sin, they should not be attending same sex weddings. It's that simple. If gays can find a way for the vendors to sell their products or services without having to participate in the activities, let's hear it.

The refused to make a cake. This bullshit about delivering it is just that; bullshit. It's made up.

This was not about attending a gay wedding. I'm sure the fags would have been happy to pick up the cake and take it themselves.

So just put that fantasy down.

These bakers had baked special event cakes for this same couple before. It isn't a matter of picking up a cake. Put the damn cake in a cab.

Wedding cakes are tiered. They require construction so they don't fall over. If it was a sheet cake or a two layer cake, this would never have happened. It would have been like the birthday cake they made before.

Actually, the problem was that the wedding itself was an event in which the bakers did not wish to participate in any way, shape, or form, whereas they have no religious objections to homosexuals having birthdays.

So baking the tiers and having someone else assemble them would STILL have been participation, which is what they didn't want to do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You were doing SOOOO well, and then you had to start lying to make it okay.

The couple was, and IS, under investigation by the state of Oregon for violation of their "anti-discrimination" law. Furthermore, only in leftist "Die if you disagree with me" land are threats and intimidation considered "the free market" or a "community boycott".

As you said, they are under investigation, there has been no action by the government at this point - the business closed it's retail outlet because of lost revenue because their customers went away.

By it's very nature a boycott is "intimidation" and that is the market at work. What do you think a boycott is besides an attempt at economic intimidation. Or put another way, the ability of the consumer to choose at which business they spend their dollars.

People have the right of free speech and can express their displeasure with the bakery for their conduct. However I don't support threats of violence and such threats are a criminal offense. The bakery owners should have turned that information over to the police and the perpetrators charged under the law.


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

A business is judged on the quality of their product and how they treat their customers

If a bakery makes horrible cakes then the customer is justified to let the community know that they make bad cakes
If a bakery refuses to serve you, the customer is justified to let the community know why they weren't served

And the bakery is equally justified in explaining that they don't serve assholes who want the state to force people into slavery.

I think they should have just told the bitches that they didn't want to bake the cake because they were unpleasant excuses for human beings with whom the bakers didn't want to associate.

I'll bet that's the truth NOW, even if it wasn't then.