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

[RKMBrown]

There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue. It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.

Next, the cake is delivered and set up long before any guests arrive, then the baker leaves. They don't go to any wedding/civil union ceremonies nor stay for the reception.

So now you're saying the objection the xtian bakers had was being forced to visit the reception hall to deliver the cake. Does that mean they can never visit that hall again in their life? Is it filled with gay cooties now?

You know what's strange about all this? NO ONE knows how big this civil ceremony was going to be, whether it was even *at* a reception hall (I have attended a number of post-ceremony evens at people's houses, even one in a local park) or ANY other details about this event. NONE.

It could have been a small ceremony with a gathering after, where they had no tiers, a moderate sized cake, planned pick-up...any number of variables
NO
ONE
KNOWS

All we know is, they went in to discuss a cake for the ceremony, and it never went past "it's for two women" -- (not exact phrase, they said the names of the brides) --

That.was.it.

So all this cracky crap about halls, tiers, attending, bla bla bla is just speculation about a dork head who got his figgety ass all tailed up when heard it was a same-sex wedding.

Then proceeded to tell them they were "abominations."

All these other speculations are ridiculous.

IT
DOES
NOT
MATTER

They did not refuse to serve the couple. In fact, they had served them numerous times in the past, and had no problem with them coming back to the shop. All they did was refuse to make a cake for a ceremony they disagreed with.

I see so they did not refuse to bake the cake for them, they just refused to bake the cake for them for the ceremony. Yeah that's different than refusing to bake a cake for them based on discrimination. NO wait, it's not different. I'm confused.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The gay mafia at work.

Gay Activists Used 'Mafia Tactics' to Shut Down Bakery, Says Christian Couple

They've been militant. The best way I can describe it is they've used mafia tactics against the business. Basically, if you do business with Sweet Cakes, we will shut you down," he said

The couple claim that even after the protests and mafia tactics finally forced them to shut down their store on Saturday, they were still facing aggressive attacks as they packed up their belongings to move on Sunday.

Someone broke into their bakery truck and ransacked it on Sunday evening. The incident was confirmed by the Clackamas County Sheriff's office according to KATU, but no one has been arrested.

""I didn't want to be a part of her marriage which I think is wrong," Aaron Klein told KATU."

What marriage? Gay marriage is not recognized in Oregon.

Again, what deeply held religious belief was being violated?

Theirs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So a venue that serves food and caters weddings, and various other parties where food and drink are served doesn't have a fridge?

Again too easy.

Did you stop to wonder what a fridge would look like to hold a constructed tiered wedding cake? Would YOU want to transport a constructed, tiered cake from table to fridge and back or were you just unaware that once together they cannot be moved. Again, too easy. These cakes are not welded together, they are balanced.

Every restaurant or banquet hall I have ever been in had a walk-in fridge.

But It's not too hard to put a cake together. As long as all the supports are left in the cakes

The next day all you have to do is place the upper cakes on the support bases of the lower cake in the correct order.

If you ever played with blocks you can put a wedding cake together.

You're just looking for any excuse here aren't you?

Want to keep trying?

Most business owners solve piddly problems like these all day long.

You do not keep a cake in the same fridge you keep other foods. The reason for this should be self explanatory, but since you have obviously never been within 1000 miles of a freshly baked cake, I will point out the obvious.

Cakes adsorb odors, and flavors, from other foods. This is why Tupperware sells a hermetically sealed cake dish.

 

[Alfalfa]

There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue. It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.

Next, the cake is delivered and set up long before any guests arrive, then the baker leaves. They don't go to any wedding/civil union ceremonies nor stay for the reception.

So now you're saying the objection the xtian bakers had was being forced to visit the reception hall to deliver the cake. Does that mean they can never visit that hall again in their life? Is it filled with gay cooties now?

You know what's strange about all this? NO ONE knows how big this civil ceremony was going to be, whether it was even *at* a reception hall (I have attended a number of post-ceremony evens at people's houses, even one in a local park) or ANY other details about this event. NONE.

It could have been a small ceremony with a gathering after, where they had no tiers, a moderate sized cake, planned pick-up...any number of variables
NO
ONE
KNOWS

All we know is, they went in to discuss a cake for the ceremony, and it never went past "it's for two women" -- (not exact phrase, they said the names of the brides) --

That.was.it.

So all this cracky crap about halls, tiers, attending, bla bla bla is just speculation about a dork head who got his figgety ass all tailed up when heard it was a same-sex wedding.

Then proceeded to tell them they were "abominations."

All these other speculations are ridiculous.

IT
DOES
NOT
MATTER

They did not refuse to serve the couple. In fact, they had served them numerous times in the past, and had no problem with them coming back to the shop. All they did was refuse to make a cake for a ceremony they disagreed with.

Does this actually make sense to you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know what's strange about all this? NO ONE knows how big this civil ceremony was going to be, whether it was even *at* a reception hall (I have attended a number of post-ceremony evens at people's houses, even one in a local park) or ANY other details about this event. NONE.

It could have been a small ceremony with a gathering after, where they had no tiers, a moderate sized cake, planned pick-up...any number of variables
NO
ONE
KNOWS

All we know is, they went in to discuss a cake for the ceremony, and it never went past "it's for two women" -- (not exact phrase, they said the names of the brides) --

That.was.it.

So all this cracky crap about halls, tiers, attending, bla bla bla is just speculation about a dork head who got his figgety ass all tailed up when heard it was a same-sex wedding.

Then proceeded to tell them they were "abominations."

All these other speculations are ridiculous.

IT
DOES
NOT
MATTER

They did not refuse to serve the couple. In fact, they had served them numerous times in the past, and had no problem with them coming back to the shop. All they did was refuse to make a cake for a ceremony they disagreed with.

Does this actually make sense to you?

What I want to know is:

Does any of your hatred of Christians make any sense to you? You who wish for equality and tolerance..

And they did serve that couple plenty of other times with no issues. But this visit was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Alfalfa]

The gay mafia at work.

Gay Activists Used 'Mafia Tactics' to Shut Down Bakery, Says Christian Couple

They've been militant. The best way I can describe it is they've used mafia tactics against the business. Basically, if you do business with Sweet Cakes, we will shut you down," he said

The couple claim that even after the protests and mafia tactics finally forced them to shut down their store on Saturday, they were still facing aggressive attacks as they packed up their belongings to move on Sunday.

Someone broke into their bakery truck and ransacked it on Sunday evening. The incident was confirmed by the Clackamas County Sheriff's office according to KATU, but no one has been arrested.

""I didn't want to be a part of her marriage which I think is wrong," Aaron Klein told KATU."

What marriage? Gay marriage is not recognized in Oregon.

Again, what deeply held religious belief was being violated?

Theirs.

Again, does this answer make sense to you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Quick question, even if they believe that, why does it prove they are not sincere? Who appointed you judge of what is, and is not, permissible for Christians? Aren't your words simply bigotry and hate speech aimed at people who have a different world view than you do? Doesn't that make you worse than the people who do not believe that it is wrong to discriminate based on personal beliefs?

That brings us to the very principle this thread should be about. Why is it less immoral to believe that Christians are delusional and should be required to keep their religion out of sight and to themselves than it is to believe that gays should be required to keep their marriages out of sight and to themselves? I'm going to guess that more gay people think Christians are an abomination than Christians think gays are an abomination.

I would lay odds that a very large percentage of Christian bakers would have delivered and set up that cake at a gay wedding. I would have. Everybody I know would have. But that isn't the point.

I do not want my government having the power to order me to go anywhere or do anything in the service of others that I do not choose to do. No matter who the others are. The Founders intended that we all have an unalienable right to our thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and convictions with impunity.

It costs the bakers nothing to sell cakes and cookies over the counter to anybody at the store. How would the baker even KNOW who the people are unless the people tell them? But it is quite something else again to require the baker to participate in something which he or she does not wish to participate.

To intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody purely because you don't agree with their belief or conviction is unAmerican. And it is evil.

I said it before but it got ignored.

There is no gay marriage in Oregon. So what deeply help christian beliefs of the bakers were being violated? It appears this may have been a celebration of a civil union...which is not a marriage, it's a contract!

Where in the bible does it say no contracts between homos?

It does not matter what is in the Bible. It does not matter what sort of ceremony was involved. It doesn't matter what is and is not legal in Oregon. It doesn't matter if the person developed his/her theology from Grimm's Fairy Tales or Adventures of the Great Spaghetti Monster.

The government at any level should have no power to require a citizen to go where the citizen does not choose to go or require a citizen to participate in something that the citizen does not wish to participate in.

And those who presume the moral authority to destroy the business and livelihood of a person or via threats or coercion drive a person out of business are violating one of our most fundamental unalienable rights: the right to hold whatever convictions we choose to hold with impunity. Those who would do that to somebody purely because they do not share the beliefs or convictions of a person are thugs, bullies, bigots, and evil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if it was a fake marriage with no legal authority the xtians would be equally correct in their bigotry?

So the biblical phrase in play here is "MArriage shall be between one man and one woman...including fake marriages"?

It might. Suppose it was a heterosexual couple and a cohabitation ceremony without marriage? The Christians opposed living in sin. It would end up the exact same way.

That's come up with landlords and inn keepers who refused to rent to couples just living together or running off to the Notell Motel.

They told the reporter (from the Pulitzer prize winning newspaper) they would bake a baby shower cake for a lady having her second baby with her boyfriend.

And a pagan solstice cake they would bake too.

With a pentagram design.

They's all in on that. Cafeteria christians as well as bakers.

Before I get started here, that particular r reporter did not win a Pulitzer, so bring up the Pulitzer just shows how desperate you are.

Now I am forced to point out that the reporter says he spoke with an employee of the bakery, not the owners.

This leads me left to wonder if the employee a) was speaking for the owners, b) had been getting hundreds of calls from hateful people, and as a result, c) might have been punking the reporter.

But, by all means, keep bringing up that story like it proves something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

gay mafia.

Geezez Christ you folks are such whackadoodles.

Just curious, what would you call a group that threatened people who employed a person who gave money to support Prop 8?

 

[Alfalfa]

IT
DOES
NOT
MATTER

They did not refuse to serve the couple. In fact, they had served them numerous times in the past, and had no problem with them coming back to the shop. All they did was refuse to make a cake for a ceremony they disagreed with.

Does this actually make sense to you?

What I want to know is:

Does any of your hatred of Christians make any sense to you? You who wish for equality and tolerance..

And they did serve that couple plenty of other times with no issues. But this visit was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I never said I wished for equality and tolerance. Fibbing again?

 

[paperview]

Oregon's Civil Rights Laws have been on the books since 1958.

Some amendments have been added for other classes.

Since 1958.

Signing Oregon's Civil Rights Bill, 1953 // OrHi 44402​

The proponents of Oregon’s Civil Rights Bill, also known as the Public Accommodations Bill, pose for posterity. Seated, from left: Philip S. Hitchcock and Mark O. Hatfield. Standing, from left: Edgar Williams, Marie Smith, Ulysses Plummer, Rev. J. Harold Jones, Lorna J. Marple, Verdell Rutherford, and Otto G. Rutherford.


In 1953, Oregon’s Civil Rights Bill was signed by Governor Paul L. Patterson, making Oregon the twenty-first state in the union to pass legislation outlawing discrimination in public places. The bill was passed in the senate under the leadership of Philip S. Hitchcock by a vote of 21 to 9, and in the house by a vote of 46 to 11, shepherded by the efforts of Mark O. Hatfield. Opponents unsuccessfully attempted to amend the bill by including a provision to refer the legislation to Oregon voters as a legislative referral.

With its passage, Oregon ensured “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, religion, color or national origin.”

Soon after its passage, a group called the Civil Freedom Committee announced its intent to circulate petitions for a state-wide referendum to challenge the bill. Led by Rev. Elbert D. Riddick, rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Portland, the Civil Freedom Committee argued that the Civil Rights Law was a violation of Oregonians’ freedom of choice.

In 1950, the same committee was successful in its attempts to defeat a similar ordinance in Portland that outlawed discrimination in public accommodations within the city’s limits. Riddick railed against the imposition of “unwanted companionship” and “compulsory ‘equality’” by the “police power of the state.” But, without the endorsement of any of Oregon’s major newspapers or labor unions, the Civil Freedom Committee was unable to collect the 23,375 required signatures needed to put the Public Accommodations Bill on the 1954 general election ballot.

Oregon History Project

Some people have tried to get rid of it, as you can see above.

Seeing it's been there for 60 years, and no doubt religious objections have been made in other cases, it doesn't appear any of them ever held up.

It's still there, and likely not going anywhere.

People are free to petition for repeal, but I doubt there would be much success. Until then, people who open business that are open to the general public are going to have to accept the law or change the way they do business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for being honest. That's much better than pretending I'm a liar by stating the clear meaning of their views that christian bigotry against gays should be protected.

I would defend civil rights laws, based on the fact that without them great harm is done by the majority on minority groups. Everyone has the basic right to life and liberty. Shopping in the public marketplace is a necessity for all of us. The ability of the majority to literally and figuratively starve out a minority group must be restrained. If not where does the line move? Do christians then move into gay hovels like israeli settlers and thus then move gays out of counties and states? Where does that end? With gays being pushed out of the states? That may be preferable to you. But I warn you, some day some majority group may target you and your family as not being of the right race, creed, religion, or "sexual orientation."

We don't need civil rights laws to protect people from harm, we simply need reasonable laws that make it illegal to hurt people.

By the way, a Christian hostel has never refused to feed anyone as long as they have food, but a Christian owned restaurant should be free to not serve a group wearing Nazi symbols and loudly proclaiming their views on racial supremacy.

>> We don't need civil rights laws to protect people from harm, we simply need reasonable laws that make it illegal to hurt people.

Huh? What's the difference between civil rights laws that protect people from harm, and your so called "reasonable laws?" Why do you think civil rights are "unreasonable?"

>> a Christian owned restaurant should be free to not serve a group wearing Nazi symbols and loudly proclaiming their views on racial supremacy

Duh. What is the point in comparing gays with nazi's, what's the point of that?

Your version of laws requires a photographer to attend a wedding even if she doesn't want to.

Your version of laws requires a black restaurant owner to serve David Duke.

Your version of law sucks.

I would tell you want it sucks, but it might violate the rules about bestiality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know what's strange about all this? NO ONE knows how big this civil ceremony was going to be, whether it was even *at* a reception hall (I have attended a number of post-ceremony evens at people's houses, even one in a local park) or ANY other details about this event. NONE.

It could have been a small ceremony with a gathering after, where they had no tiers, a moderate sized cake, planned pick-up...any number of variables
NO
ONE
KNOWS

All we know is, they went in to discuss a cake for the ceremony, and it never went past "it's for two women" -- (not exact phrase, they said the names of the brides) --

That.was.it.

So all this cracky crap about halls, tiers, attending, bla bla bla is just speculation about a dork head who got his figgety ass all tailed up when heard it was a same-sex wedding.

Then proceeded to tell them they were "abominations."

All these other speculations are ridiculous.

IT
DOES
NOT
MATTER

They did not refuse to serve the couple. In fact, they had served them numerous times in the past, and had no problem with them coming back to the shop. All they did was refuse to make a cake for a ceremony they disagreed with.

Does this actually make sense to you?

It proves that their objection was not based on the couples sexual preference, it was based on what they wanted. Since you support bakers not baking cakes for a KKK rally, it must make sense to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

""I didn't want to be a part of her marriage which I think is wrong," Aaron Klein told KATU."

What marriage? Gay marriage is not recognized in Oregon.

Again, what deeply held religious belief was being violated?

Theirs.

Again, does this answer make sense to you?

The question is, why doesn't it make sense to you? Are you incapable of conceiving of an opinion that does not center around what the government approves or disapproves? Why is it only possible for them to object to the ceremony if the state calls it marraige?

 

[blackhawk]

I wonder if any of the threats made against the christian couple would fall under the heading of hate crime if the threats were followed through on them? Would or should Eric Holder and the DOJ be investigating the threats made against them? On a side note I don't really care about gay marriage one way or the other if they want to make gay marriage legal fine whatever that said I'm getting a bit tired of gay people feeling like the whole country is supposed to cater to their every whim if you run across a baker or florist who does not want to do your even because of their religious beliefs just go to someone else I'm sure there are many out there who will take your money with no problem and stop making literally a federal case out of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oregon's Civil Rights Laws have been on the books since 1958.

Some amendments have been added for other classes.

Since 1958.

Signing Oregon's Civil Rights Bill, 1953 // OrHi 44402​

The proponents of Oregon’s Civil Rights Bill, also known as the Public Accommodations Bill, pose for posterity. Seated, from left: Philip S. Hitchcock and Mark O. Hatfield. Standing, from left: Edgar Williams, Marie Smith, Ulysses Plummer, Rev. J. Harold Jones, Lorna J. Marple, Verdell Rutherford, and Otto G. Rutherford.


In 1953, Oregon’s Civil Rights Bill was signed by Governor Paul L. Patterson, making Oregon the twenty-first state in the union to pass legislation outlawing discrimination in public places. The bill was passed in the senate under the leadership of Philip S. Hitchcock by a vote of 21 to 9, and in the house by a vote of 46 to 11, shepherded by the efforts of Mark O. Hatfield. Opponents unsuccessfully attempted to amend the bill by including a provision to refer the legislation to Oregon voters as a legislative referral.

With its passage, Oregon ensured “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, religion, color or national origin.”

Soon after its passage, a group called the Civil Freedom Committee announced its intent to circulate petitions for a state-wide referendum to challenge the bill. Led by Rev. Elbert D. Riddick, rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Portland, the Civil Freedom Committee argued that the Civil Rights Law was a violation of Oregonians’ freedom of choice.

In 1950, the same committee was successful in its attempts to defeat a similar ordinance in Portland that outlawed discrimination in public accommodations within the city’s limits. Riddick railed against the imposition of “unwanted companionship” and “compulsory ‘equality’” by the “police power of the state.” But, without the endorsement of any of Oregon’s major newspapers or labor unions, the Civil Freedom Committee was unable to collect the 23,375 required signatures needed to put the Public Accommodations Bill on the 1954 general election ballot.

Oregon History Project

Some people have tried to get rid of it, as you can see above.

Seeing it's been there for 60 years, and no doubt religious objections have been made in other cases, it doesn't appear any of them ever held up.

It's still there, and likely not going anywhere.

People are free to petition for repeal, but I doubt there would be much success. Until then, people who open business that are open to the general public are going to have to accept the law or change the way they do business.

55 years of bad law is still bad law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

According to Christianity, those to reject Christ are sinners and are anti-Christ.

Does that mean Christians should be able to refuse service to Jews?

Well, they did for about 1700 years.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Actually, the Jews were the predominant religion/culture. Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and from the death of Christ onwards, it appears the Jews were the ones going after Christians, in fact for over 300 years that was the case, until Constantine issued a creed of tolerance in 313 AD.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Does this actually make sense to you?

What I want to know is:

Does any of your hatred of Christians make any sense to you? You who wish for equality and tolerance..

And they did serve that couple plenty of other times with no issues. But this visit was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I never said I wished for equality and tolerance. Fibbing again?

Are you truly that witless or are you just a puppet? However, I have to agree with that statement. You liberals never wanted equality and tolerance, and it shows.

 

[emilynghiem]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html

Hey everyone! This thread inspired me to set up a real business spoofing the bigotry
and promoting awareness of free spiritual healing. Please see above link to the announcement
before I really try to set up a website to promote this concept...

 

[TemplarKormac]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html

Hey everyone! This thread inspired me to set up a real business spoofing the bigotry
and promoting awareness of free spiritual healing. Please see above link to the announcement
before I really try to set up a website to promote this concept...