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

[TemplarKormac]

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

Not all Christians agree with you AND with the Loving v. Virginia case, Christianity and the bible was used to argue for keeping the different races from legally marrying. 50 years from now, what do you think your christianity's position will be on gay marriage?

I don't know how people can so consistently miss this point.

I don't know how you can so consistently not have an argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?



>>>>

Unlike you, I don't see anything logical about forcing people to do things against their principles. It is slavery, and is always bad. Any attempt to argue that it is good if the results produce a positive social benefit is fundamentally contradictory to the principles that founded this country.

And that, ultimately, is the issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

God talked to me about this, and told me that he doesn't give a rat's ass about it one way or another.

Good for you, you can now stop pretending you care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>

It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone. If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that. The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.

He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business. It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop. He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.

But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no. He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.

I'm sorry, but you are legally mistaken. The location of the discrimination when the business model calls for on-site services makes no difference as the NM case points out.

A Plumber can no more refuse to unclog the Jewish persons toilet in their home, based on religion, then they can refuse to someone a toilet wax ring in their storefront.

The solution is not defining "special privileges" that people can claim on morality/convictions/faith, the solution is true freedom and the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses in general.



>>>>

Which is why the law sucks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think Cecille yanks his own cord.

His? You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit? Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?

Well, you post like a dude...and yes, there are men named Cecil.

Posts like a dude? Do you think women have to ask permission before they can say something? Should they never argue with a man?

And you call me a bigot. If being a bigot means disagreeing with your pronouncements on the proper place of women, I am a bigot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

Not all Christians agree with you AND with the Loving v. Virginia case, Christianity and the bible was used to argue for keeping the different races from legally marrying. 50 years from now, what do you think your christianity's position will be on gay marriage?

I don't know how people can so consistently miss this point.

Could it be because it never happened?

 

[TemplarKormac]

His? You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit? Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?

Well, you post like a dude...and yes, there are men named Cecil.

Posts like a dude? Do you think women have to ask permission before they can say something? Should they never argue with a man?

And you call me a bigot. If being a bigot means disagreeing with your pronouncements on the proper place of women, I am a bigot.

Yes, I keep saying this, but nobody seems to see it. They who require tolerance are intolerant. Those who despise bigotry are bigoted. Those who desire justice are unjust. Those who desire equality dole out inequality. It's quite easy to see.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?



>>>>

Support their choice to do so? No. Support their right to make that choice? Yes. The essence of the First Amendment has always been, "I disagree with what you say (or do), but I defend to the death your right to say it (or do it)."

 

[Foxfyre]

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

The logic used by the couple in the bakery is irrelevant to Gadawg's post.

The legal logic is what is in question.

Person "A" states their religious conviction is that races shouldn't intermarry - therefore based on Person "A" conviction they discriminate based on race.

Person "B" states their religious conviction is that gender shouldn't marry the same gender - therefore based on Person "B" conviction they discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple.​

Now remembering that this is based on religious convitions and (a) not all religious convictions are based on the Bible, and (b) even then some may interpret the Bible differently from others - then please explain why Person "A's" should not receive the same exemption under the law as Person "B".

If both should, any person under the law can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, parental status, martial status, veteran's status, etc simply by claiming that it is their personal religious conviction.

If only Christians can discriminate against gays because of their religious convictions, but others with differing convictions cannot, then it's really not about upholding religious convictions. It's asking for an exemption to only be able to discriminate against the "gheys".



>>>>

I repeat my question, why the fuck should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it?

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

 

[bendog]

I would have jerked off in the cake batter.

I've heard from gay friends that there are guys who claim to be straight who like getting bjs from gays. Food for thought.

 

[Alfalfa]

And you think this is a persuasive argument? Heheh...

 

[WorldWatcher]

The logic used by the couple in the bakery is irrelevant to Gadawg's post.

The legal logic is what is in question.

Person "A" states their religious conviction is that races shouldn't intermarry - therefore based on Person "A" conviction they discriminate based on race.

Person "B" states their religious conviction is that gender shouldn't marry the same gender - therefore based on Person "B" conviction they discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple.​

Now remembering that this is based on religious convictions and (a) not all religious convictions are based on the Bible, and (b) even then some may interpret the Bible differently from others - then please explain why Person "A's" should not receive the same exemption under the law as Person "B".

If both should, any person under the law can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, parental status, martial status, veteran's status, etc simply by claiming that it is their personal religious conviction.

If only Christians can discriminate against gays because of their religious convictions, but others with differing convictions cannot, then it's really not about upholding religious convictions. It's asking for an exemption to only be able to discriminate against the "gheys".



>>>>

I repeat my question, why the fuck should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it?

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

So could you clarify your position regarding the Oregon Bakery:

1. Two woman come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be picked up at the shop. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2. Two woman come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​

The shop owner objects to same gender weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not? Is that correct?

******************************************

Using a similar scenario to the Oregon Bakery:

1. A black woman and white man come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be picked up at the shop. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2. A black woman and white man come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​

The shop owner objects to interracial weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not? Is that correct?


****************************

Trying to mince whether a business transaction takes place in the person's shop or at a client location just doesn't make any logical sense. In BOTH scenario's the location of the delivery of services is irrelevant to the fundamental violation of the law. The law encroaches on the private property rights of the owner in BOTH scenario's and trying to justify discrimination based on the fact that in one case a cake is picked up in the store and in another it's delivered to a reception hall (which BTW is not taking part in the ceremony) seems like a stretch.



>>>>

 

[Alfalfa]

The logic used by the couple in the bakery is irrelevant to Gadawg's post.

The legal logic is what is in question.

Person "A" states their religious conviction is that races shouldn't intermarry - therefore based on Person "A" conviction they discriminate based on race.

Person "B" states their religious conviction is that gender shouldn't marry the same gender - therefore based on Person "B" conviction they discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple.​

Now remembering that this is based on religious convitions and (a) not all religious convictions are based on the Bible, and (b) even then some may interpret the Bible differently from others - then please explain why Person "A's" should not receive the same exemption under the law as Person "B".

If both should, any person under the law can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, parental status, martial status, veteran's status, etc simply by claiming that it is their personal religious conviction.

If only Christians can discriminate against gays because of their religious convictions, but others with differing convictions cannot, then it's really not about upholding religious convictions. It's asking for an exemption to only be able to discriminate against the "gheys".



>>>>

I repeat my question, why the fuck should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it?

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

Sorry to burst your bubble but in all 3 scenarios you put forth the service providers would be legally protected in not serving those customers since political positions are not protected classes.

This is said over and over and over and over but the xtian bigots and haters who want their pervasive form of bible based bigotry enshrined in law don't listen because these kinds of arguments, that are immaterial to the issue at hand, are all they have.

Pathetic and sad.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

Why is a can of worms for individuals to not be ordered around by the government?

Seriously, given your repeated assertions that you support individual freedom, a small government, and your constant complaints about other people wanting to shove their beliefs down your throat, why do you insist that the government have the ability to force people to do what you want?

I only see one answer to that question, and it ain't a pretty one.

You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I repeat my question, why the fuck should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it?

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

So could you clarify your position regarding the Oregon Bakery:

1. Two woman come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be picked up at the shop. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2. Two woman come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​

The shop owner objects to same gender weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not? Is that correct?

******************************************

Using a similar scenario to the Oregon Bakery:

1. A black woman and white man come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be picked up at the shop. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2. A black woman and white man come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​

The shop owner objects to interracial weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not? Is that correct?


****************************

Trying to mince whether a business transaction takes place in the person's shop or at a client location just doesn't make any logical sense. In BOTH scenario's the location of the delivery of services is irrelevant to the fundamental violation of the law. The law encroaches on the private property rights of the owner in BOTH scenario's and trying to justify discrimination based on the fact that in one case a cake is picked up in the store and in another it's delivered to a reception hall (which BTW is not taking part in the ceremony) seems like a stretch.



>>>>

Why do you keep defending laws you say you do not agree with? Is it because you really don't understand that it is acceptable to challenge them on the basis of personal principle, even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with you? Grow some balls and argue what you say your position is, or shut up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>

It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone. If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that. The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.

He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business. It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop. He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.

But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no. He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.

I'm sorry, but you are legally mistaken. The location of the discrimination when the business model calls for on-site services makes no difference as the NM case points out.

A Plumber can no more refuse to unclog the Jewish persons toilet in their home, based on religion, then they can refuse to someone a toilet wax ring in their storefront.

The solution is not defining "special privileges" that people can claim on morality/convictions/faith, the solution is true freedom and the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses in general.



>>>>

So what is the argument you're making? "This should be the law, because it's the law"? You're talking about what the law IS, as though that settles some question about what the law SHOULD BE, which is what Foxfyre appears to be discussing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I repeat my question, why the fuck should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it?

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

Sorry to burst your bubble but in all 3 scenarios you put forth the service providers would be legally protected in not serving those customers since political positions are not protected classes.

This is said over and over and over and over but the xtian bigots and haters who want their pervasive form of bigotry enshrined in law don't listen because these kinds of arguments, that are immaterial to the issue at hand, are all they have.

Pathetic and sad.

Want to explain why someone who is a member of PETA would be able to argue that not bringing flowers to a convention of butchers is OK because cutting up meat is a political position?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think Cecille yanks his own cord.

His? You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit? Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?

Well, you post like a dude...and yes, there are men named Cecil.

How many times did you actually flunk reading in school? My name isn't Cecil, halfwit. It's CECILIE. Get some glasses, or a seeing-eye dog, or something.

 

[Alfalfa]

His? You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit? Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?

Well, you post like a dude...and yes, there are men named Cecil.

How many times did you actually flunk reading in school? My name isn't Cecil, halfwit. It's CECILIE. Get some glasses, or a seeing-eye dog, or something.

I'm sorry, is that french?

 

[bendog]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin