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

[Cecilie1200]

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be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose.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 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.

'Tis true. Does anyone really think that word of mouth isn't going to get around, and pretty soon everyone in town is going to know that Joe down at Joe's Diner is a racist piece of shit who doesn't like to serve black people, and they're going to start shunning the place on their own. Maybe Joe gets enough business from other racists and people who just don't give a shit to stay in business, but probably not. If he does, then fine. At least they're all isolated in one spot, and no one's forced to have Joe as a co-worker someplace else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There goes Foxy bandying about the term "evil" for the 10th + time

Does it pinch a little?

 

[Immanuel]

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 think the irony is going to be when these spoiled little whiners, stomping their feet in a pretense of "oppression", actually end up a change in the law to allow people MORE freedom from them and their self-absorbed demands, rather than less.

From your fingertips to God's eyeballs, but I don't think the intolerant progressives who control this country will allow such a thing to happen. Tolerance is something they demand from us but they will be damned if they give it.

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

1) A business refusing service or products due to verifiable safety reasons is legal so you're linking that with reasons which are patently against anti-discrimination laws as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest. But I bet it works in church...

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of physical acts of hate and discrimination against a protected class are constantly misrepresented as violations of the 1st amend. Hold all the bigoted, racist, hateful thoughts you want, discuss them among your peers, but put them into action and you will go to jail or get sued.

1) Such thinking is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Such stalwart thinking is flawed. They call it "freedom of religion" for a good reason. If a person does not want to violate their religious convictions, that should wholly be their right to. On the flip side yes, a gay couple has the same right not to expose themselves to ideals which conflict with their own. That is the essence of the matter.

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of equality and tolerance are the very perpetrators of inequality and intolerance towards other belief sets. Violating someone's right to freely practice their faith, with no constraints bound on them by law is not a misrepresentation of the First Amendment. It is spelled out in clear lettering: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law made thereafter such as public accommodation law (simply based on sexual orientation or religion) would be in direct conflict, since as you saw here, it prevents a person from upholding their own religious convictions or personally held beliefs.

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

I love it. Citing the Constitution where it says that there can't BE any laws restricting free exercise of religion in order to defend the free exercise of religion against violating those self-same laws WHICH CAN'T CONSTITUTIONALLY EXIST is "ignorance and desperation.

Only a liberal would consider believing the Constitution still has meaning to be "ignorant and desperate".

God, you're stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Oh, puhleeze. They couldn't get a wedding cake at THAT bakery, and now they're being "starved out". Wait, let me get my violin. That much melodrama and pathos shouldn't go by without proper musical accompaniment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

In other words, it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS how someone else does or does not choose to interpret the will of God. They are not required, in any way, shape, or form to consult YOU on what their beliefs are or should be, by ANY standard.

Under our Constitution, it IS, in fact, legally okay to "twist the word of God" - or anything else you please - to form your personal belief system. It's YOURS. That's what "personal" means.

Let me know if I'm still not making myself clear and you are still laboring under the delusion that your reading of the Bible has fuck-all to do with other people's beliefs or the law as it pertains to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Contemplate the difference between "their faith" and "what Noomi THINKS their faith is and should be".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would have thought that most Christians would be opposed to human cloning considering that it destroys a human embryo.

Well, that'll teach you to engage in activities for which you're unequipping (thinking, in other words).

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't.

Dear God, coming from you, that's the funniest thing I've heard today.

Did you just have a stroke, or what?

 

[Alfalfa]

Wasn't it federal law as well? I suppose of Obama's boys won't prosecute...

No, federal Public Accommodation law does not list sexual orientation.



>>>>

Then WHAT ON EARTH have we been discussing all this time?! If Federal Public Accommodation Law does not list sexual orientation, the bakery was well within their rights. Federal Law trumps state law. Period.

You can't be this dumb.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I admit to being a bigot against homophobes and racists of all religions.

Really? I admit to being a bigot against bigots and hypocrites of all persuasions. Probably why YOU make me want to vomit.

Was this supposed to be clever? "I'm a bigot, but only against bigots. Of course, I define that as anyone to disagrees with me, so that means I only have to tolerate people who agree with me!" Yeah, and the Pope "tolerates" Catholics.

Like virtually everything you say, this doesn't pass the laugh test for anyone intelligent . . . which is probably why you thought it was brilliant.

Are you really this retarded? Or are you just kidding?

In other words, you just got your ass spanked, and have no reply. Dismissed.

 

[Alfalfa]

Better contact the American Family Association, and the One Million Moms Campaign, and about 20 other 'Christian' organizations that work to promote boycotts of things they find offensive and want to remove and/or put out of business.

Boycotts are part of America ferchissakes. Our revolution STARTED with a boycott.

Free Speech is wrong now?

They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them.

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.

Hey you big ole student of history you!

"Led by vocal orators such as James Otis and Patrick Henry, the colonists began a massive boycott of British goods causing colonial imports to fall from £2,250,000 in 1764, to £1,944,000 in 1765. In several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty" formed."

American Revolution Causes - Causes of the American Revolution - Revolutionary War Causes

Don't confuse them with facts while they're praying...

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, federal Public Accommodation law does not list sexual orientation.



>>>>

Then WHAT ON EARTH have we been discussing all this time?! If Federal Public Accommodation Law does not list sexual orientation, the bakery was well within their rights. Federal Law trumps state law. Period.

You can't be this dumb.

No, that title is yours, wiseguy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them.

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.

Hey you big ole student of history you!

"Led by vocal orators such as James Otis and Patrick Henry, the colonists began a massive boycott of British goods causing colonial imports to fall from £2,250,000 in 1764, to £1,944,000 in 1765. In several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty" formed."

American Revolution Causes - Causes of the American Revolution - Revolutionary War Causes

Don't confuse them with facts while they're praying...

Don't confuse Liberals with reality while they're whining.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you? These gays were regulars at that bakery. No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels. They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.

The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding. That's where they drew the line. It was a reasonable line.

I agree with a line being drawn in this way.. Yes !

The court in New Mexico drew a new line. It too is a reasonable line. That's the one that should be followed. It came out of the court, it satisfies both sides. Let that one stand.

No.

 

[Alfalfa]

The conflict is in that one allows for sexual orientation while the other does not. I see a direct conflict. Right there. Since most state laws are crafted based off of federal precedent, I do think the Supremacy Clause is in effect here. That couple can go over the State of Oregon and say they were well within their rights as it pertained to Federal Law.

In Federal court you would be right.

But the case isn't in Federal court, it's in State court where the Oregon law applies.


>>>>

But the Bakery is not only subject to State Law, but Federal Law as well. That presents a conflict in this regard. In my studies of the justice system, I learned that Federal Law will trump State Law in any matter of law or crime brought before the courts.

You can't be this dumb.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?

Because you have to actually attend the wedding venue.

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?

Oh, shut the fuck UP already with your "Look how clever I am!" word-parsing. You are right at the limit of my medications.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all? Would they sue or change the date?

Jews do not close their stores any day of the week in the US. That scenario wouldn't happen. Jews even sell Christmas merchandise including decorations. Jews like money. How did you miss that part?

Actually, Orthodox Jews most certainly DO close their stores on the Sabbath.

 

[Alfalfa]

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Let me guess...fail you're GED?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all? Would they sue or change the date?

He could have delivered the cake Friday.

That was too easy.

Spoken like someone who knows shit about baking and confections.