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

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone knows my position as I am open about it so what is there to pin me down about?
I am a Libertarian that supports 100% what my party says:
"We applaud the US Supreme Court decision to strike down the DOMA, a federal law that discriminates against non heterosexual marriages."
That is what defines my opinion and beliefs. Is that pinning it down? I am a LIBERTARIAN.
We stand for this in the Libertarian Party and it is clearly front page on our national web site: "The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971".
So which is with you? Are you a Libertarian or are you not?
"This is a landmark decision for personal freedom" Geoff Neale, chair of the Libertarian National Committee.
Do you believe the repeal of DOMA by the SCOTUS was a landmark decision for personal freedom?
Libertarians ARE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Are you for marriage equality?
For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons I am normally opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action. However, to stretch that into if a business chooses to discriminate at will the typical libertarian says that is a business's right to do so is not true.
Barry Goldwater in his opposition to the Civil Rights Act spoke on this, made reference in his speech on the final vote of this very subject, Milton Friedman made comparisons to the Hitler Nuremberg Laws when the Fair Employment Practices Act passed.
The fiercest opponent of public accommodation legislation was William F. Buckley, Jr.
He publicly changed his mind in 2004 and stated he was wrong and government intervention was needed. If a business is open to the public and is incorporated the rules are different than a private club.

You are 1005 right, everyone knows you position. Most people don't care when you post something that totally contradicts your support of government imposing a belief system on others, but I find it offensive. I don't like wannabe tyrants that dress themselves up as freedom fighters. Anyone, including Buckley, that supports public accommodation laws supports tyranny.

Unlike you, I am not a Libertarian, I reuse to be a member of any group that exist only to define others.

LOL!
All you ever do is define others here.
Your milk is so weak you can never define yourself.
But is obvious you are a homophobe.

Remember when you made thoughtful and reasonable posts before you went crazy obsessing over me?

 

[RKMBrown]

I agree with most of what you say,
but wouldn't call this evil. It is selfish and human
as most people are. People are hurt and express this
by hurting others back. Not trying to be evil, just seeking justice
in ways that end up hurting both sides until we learn better ways.

Thanks, this is the best explanation of your view so far and I think this should be clear!

Hurting people is not justice, even if they hurt you first.

Essentially, two wrongs never make a right. But in this case, I don't think the couple was wrong to begin with. The wrong is gay rights groups scaring their vendors off and intentionally trying to harm their business, which they succeeded in doing.

So are you good with all discrimination in the public market?

Do you honestly believe the bakers had a problem getting bake goods? Proof?

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

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?

Weird. Xtians were against all those as well and used the bible to defend their positions.

Ended? ENDED?! The government CREATED those things, you dingbat. Are we supposed to APPLAUD their fantastic moral leadership for belatedly catching up with everyone else and ending the evils they imposed on society in the first place?

And no, the CHRISTIANS were not "opposed to those". I have no idea where you got the "idea" - if it can even be called that - that "Christians" is some precise, homogenous designation that locks everyone who fits under it into one narrow set of beliefs as perceived by YOU. On the other hand, you apparently don't even know how to spell the word, so I don't really expect you to have enough brain cells to know what it means.

Religious beliefs demanded government create laws to ban those things.
Same as the gay boogeyman issue.
Christians never supported bans on interracial marriage, women voting, drinking alcohol and integration?
What planet do you live on?
You are not very swift.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hurting people is not justice, even if they hurt you first.

Essentially, two wrongs never make a right. But in this case, I don't think the couple was wrong to begin with. The wrong is gay rights groups scaring their vendors off and intentionally trying to harm their business, which they succeeded in doing.

So are you good with all discrimination in the public market?

Do you honestly believe the bakers had a problem getting bake goods? Proof?

No. But I will not allow for this kind of religious oppression either. Because what it boils down to is that a religious couple were not to protect their beliefs and avoid committing a taboo among their religion, hence religious oppression light.

Do you honestly believe you can make a Christian sin against his own faith? On purpose, with him knowing and refusing?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Weird. Xtians were against all those as well and used the bible to defend their positions.

Ended? ENDED?! The government CREATED those things, you dingbat. Are we supposed to APPLAUD their fantastic moral leadership for belatedly catching up with everyone else and ending the evils they imposed on society in the first place?

And no, the CHRISTIANS were not "opposed to those". I have no idea where you got the "idea" - if it can even be called that - that "Christians" is some precise, homogenous designation that locks everyone who fits under it into one narrow set of beliefs as perceived by YOU. On the other hand, you apparently don't even know how to spell the word, so I don't really expect you to have enough brain cells to know what it means.

Religious beliefs demanded government create laws to ban those things.
Same as the gay boogeyman issue.
Christians never supported bans on interracial marriage, women voting, drinking alcohol and integration?
What planet do you live on?
You are not very swift.

There are idiots all over the world that use religion as an excuse to hurt other people. There are even people that claim to be Buddhists that do this. The only people that don't understand this are religious bigots who believe they are divinely inspired to wipe out other religions.

Is that why you want the government to create laws to ban religions other than yours?

 

[bendog]

Despite TP's attempts to distort the story for his own purposes, no one forced the bakers to cater a GLBT wedding. They were/are free to cater the weddings of anyone who goes to their church, or anyone who requests their services. They just can't be officially in biz. Ironically, St. Paul counseled the Hellenic churches to keep their economic dealings amonst themselves. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Despite TP's attempts to distort the story for his own purposes, no one forced the bakers to cater a GLBT wedding. They were/are free to cater the weddings of anyone who goes to their church, or anyone who requests their services. They just can't be officially in biz. Ironically, St. Paul counseled the Hellenic churches to keep their economic dealings amonst themselves. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's.

Ironically, he did no such thing.

 

[tinydancer]

Why don't just go..............

Not today.

 

[bendog]

Despite TP's attempts to distort the story for his own purposes, no one forced the bakers to cater a GLBT wedding. They were/are free to cater the weddings of anyone who goes to their church, or anyone who requests their services. They just can't be officially in biz. Ironically, St. Paul counseled the Hellenic churches to keep their economic dealings amonst themselves. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's.

Ironically, he did no such thing.

oh yeah, he did. And neg repped others for differing religious beliefs. But that's really neither here nor there. Rather, the bakers remain free to bake within their circle of people who view christian tenets about homosexuality as they do. Perhaps making less money, but not necessarilty. Moreover, their refusal to cater the lesbian couple's wedding was a hurtful thing, and intentional, which they could have avoided by simply catering the wedding, and then ceasing to publically offer services, but the boycott by the GLBT community was no less hurtful.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Essentially, two wrongs never make a right. But in this case, I don't think the couple was wrong to begin with. The wrong is gay rights groups scaring their vendors off and intentionally trying to harm their business, which they succeeded in doing.

So are you good with all discrimination in the public market?

Do you honestly believe the bakers had a problem getting bake goods? Proof?

No. But I will not allow for this kind of religious oppression either. Because what it boils down to is that a religious couple were not to protect their beliefs and avoid committing a taboo among their religion, hence religious oppression light.

Do you honestly believe you can make a Christian sin against his own faith? On purpose, with him knowing and refusing?

"religious oppression"???????????

What a whiny crock that is.

They simply chose not to serve particular customers.

That's their choice and I have no problem with that.

Now they get to live with the consequences of that decision.

There is no religious oppression in their choice to be close minded bigots.

 

[Mertex]

I do have a problem with this as a Constitutionalist.

For religious issues such as gay marriage and the health care bill, etc.
I believe if people disagree by religious and/or political beliefs, it is not constitutional
to pass and enforce a bill that violates one person/group's beliefs or the other
by imposing this way.

I would like to know which religion has a religious belief that opposes treating every human being fairly? What belief is the law in Oregon violating when it says that you have to treat everyone the same?

The problem with those that are complaining here that the bakers were mistreated or that the law is unfair to them is that they are somehow applying "their belief that it is a sin to be homosexual" to people that don't have the same belief and may not even be religious.

It's not like homosexuals are forcing the bakers to become homosexuals, or forcing them to sanction their relationship, they just want them to bake them a damn cake, which is what they are in business for.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So are you good with all discrimination in the public market?

Do you honestly believe the bakers had a problem getting bake goods? Proof?

No. But I will not allow for this kind of religious oppression either. Because what it boils down to is that a religious couple were not to protect their beliefs and avoid committing a taboo among their religion, hence religious oppression light.

Do you honestly believe you can make a Christian sin against his own faith? On purpose, with him knowing and refusing?

"religious oppression"???????????

What a whiny crock that is.

They simply chose not to serve particular customers.

That's their choice and I have no problem with that.

Now they get to live with the consequences of that decision.

There is no religious oppression in their choice to be close minded bigots.

Saul Alinsky must be proud of people like you. There is religious oppression in the way liberals like you shame other people of faith for standing up for what they believe in.

This whole thing about liberals being "tolerant", "equal" and "just" is more of a crock than anything else. When you accept the religious man as much as gay one, you will be deserving of such titles, not before.

 

[Mertex]

Saul Alinsky must be proud of people like you. There is religious oppression in the way liberals like you shame other people of faith for standing up for what they believe in.

Standing up for bigotry? That's not even Christian.

This whole thing about liberals being "tolerant", "equal" and "just" is more of a crock than anything else. When you accept the religious man as much as gay one, you will be deserving of such titles, not before.

I find that Liberals are more tolerant, equal and just than most of the right-wing extremists who try to use religion as a cover for their bigotry.

What religious belief is the Oregon state law violating when it tells business owners they have to treat every customer the same?

There is no religious belief being violated. The bakers were being bigots, they got what they deserved.

 

[RKMBrown]

Essentially, two wrongs never make a right. But in this case, I don't think the couple was wrong to begin with. The wrong is gay rights groups scaring their vendors off and intentionally trying to harm their business, which they succeeded in doing.

So are you good with all discrimination in the public market?

Do you honestly believe the bakers had a problem getting bake goods? Proof?

No. But I will not allow for this kind of religious oppression either. Because what it boils down to is that a religious couple were not to protect their beliefs and avoid committing a taboo among their religion, hence religious oppression light.

Do you honestly believe you can make a Christian sin against his own faith? On purpose, with him knowing and refusing?

First I don't agree with the convoluted logic that producing or selling a product is the same as participating in the use of the product.

Yes I do think you can make a Christian sin. Clearly from this thread that is a task that is all to easy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Despite TP's attempts to distort the story for his own purposes, no one forced the bakers to cater a GLBT wedding. They were/are free to cater the weddings of anyone who goes to their church, or anyone who requests their services. They just can't be officially in biz. Ironically, St. Paul counseled the Hellenic churches to keep their economic dealings amonst themselves. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's.

Ironically, he did no such thing.

oh yeah, he did. And neg repped others for differing religious beliefs. But that's really neither here nor there. Rather, the bakers remain free to bake within their circle of people who view christian tenets about homosexuality as they do. Perhaps making less money, but not necessarilty. Moreover, their refusal to cater the lesbian couple's wedding was a hurtful thing, and intentional, which they could have avoided by simply catering the wedding, and then ceasing to publically offer services, but the boycott by the GLBT community was no less hurtful.

I know you live in a different universe, but they did not have the Internet in this one when Paul was alive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Saul Alinsky must be proud of people like you. There is religious oppression in the way liberals like you shame other people of faith for standing up for what they believe in.

Standing up for bigotry? That's not even Christian.

This whole thing about liberals being "tolerant", "equal" and "just" is more of a crock than anything else. When you accept the religious man as much as gay one, you will be deserving of such titles, not before.

I find that Liberals are more tolerant, equal and just than most of the right-wing extremists who try to use religion as a cover for their bigotry.

What religious belief is the Oregon state law violating when it tells business owners they have to treat every customer the same?

There is no religious belief being violated. The bakers were being bigots, they got what they deserved.

I have noticed that bigots always think other bigots are fair.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ended? ENDED?! The government CREATED those things, you dingbat. Are we supposed to APPLAUD their fantastic moral leadership for belatedly catching up with everyone else and ending the evils they imposed on society in the first place?

And no, the CHRISTIANS were not "opposed to those". I have no idea where you got the "idea" - if it can even be called that - that "Christians" is some precise, homogenous designation that locks everyone who fits under it into one narrow set of beliefs as perceived by YOU. On the other hand, you apparently don't even know how to spell the word, so I don't really expect you to have enough brain cells to know what it means.

Religious beliefs demanded government create laws to ban those things.
Same as the gay boogeyman issue.
Christians never supported bans on interracial marriage, women voting, drinking alcohol and integration?
What planet do you live on?
You are not very swift.

There are idiots all over the world that use religion as an excuse to hurt other people. There are even people that claim to be Buddhists that do this. The only people that don't understand this are religious bigots who believe they are divinely inspired to wipe out other religions.

Is that why you want the government to create laws to ban religions other than yours?

As usual you run from the subject with what you falsely claim other people believe instead of telling us what you believe.
I specifically posted examples of how Christians in this country supported slavery, bans on interracial marriage, bans on women voting, bans on alcohol and supported segregation.
And as usual you run from those facts because you will not admit they ever happened.
This is not about religion.
This is about people like yourself hating gays and using "religious beliefs" as your excuse.

 

[bodecea]

Ended? ENDED?! The government CREATED those things, you dingbat. Are we supposed to APPLAUD their fantastic moral leadership for belatedly catching up with everyone else and ending the evils they imposed on society in the first place?

And no, the CHRISTIANS were not "opposed to those". I have no idea where you got the "idea" - if it can even be called that - that "Christians" is some precise, homogenous designation that locks everyone who fits under it into one narrow set of beliefs as perceived by YOU. On the other hand, you apparently don't even know how to spell the word, so I don't really expect you to have enough brain cells to know what it means.

Religious beliefs demanded government create laws to ban those things.
Same as the gay boogeyman issue.
Christians never supported bans on interracial marriage, women voting, drinking alcohol and integration?
What planet do you live on?
You are not very swift.

There are idiots all over the world that use religion as an excuse to hurt other people. There are even people that claim to be Buddhists that do this. The only people that don't understand this are religious bigots who believe they are divinely inspired to wipe out other religions.

Is that why you want the government to create laws to ban religions other than yours?

Indeed there are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do have a problem with this as a Constitutionalist.

For religious issues such as gay marriage and the health care bill, etc.
I believe if people disagree by religious and/or political beliefs, it is not constitutional
to pass and enforce a bill that violates one person/group's beliefs or the other
by imposing this way.

I would like to know which religion has a religious belief that opposes treating every human being fairly? What belief is the law in Oregon violating when it says that you have to treat everyone the same?

The problem with those that are complaining here that the bakers were mistreated or that the law is unfair to them is that they are somehow applying "their belief that it is a sin to be homosexual" to people that don't have the same belief and may not even be religious.

It's not like homosexuals are forcing the bakers to become homosexuals, or forcing them to sanction their relationship, they just want them to bake them a damn cake, which is what they are in business for.

Oh, dear God, NOW we're going to define "religion" as "touchy-feely, fuzzy-wuzzy liberal idealism", and everything else is just fake, and thus not deserving of legal protection. It'd be brilliant . . . if it wasn't so piss-stupidly juvenile it makes my stomach hurt.

Why don't you tell me which religion IS about "treating people fairly", whatever the fuck THAT means? Because I don't actually know ANY religion for which that is the central, operative purpose.

This reminds me of one of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes:

According to liberals, the message of Jesus is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive").

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd.

In fact, Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. That is the reason He is called "Christ the Redeemer" rather than "Christ the Moron Driving Around in a Volvo With a 'Be Nice to People' Bumper Sticker on It."

 

[TemplarKormac]

So are you good with all discrimination in the public market?

Do you honestly believe the bakers had a problem getting bake goods? Proof?

No. But I will not allow for this kind of religious oppression either. Because what it boils down to is that a religious couple were not to protect their beliefs and avoid committing a taboo among their religion, hence religious oppression light.

Do you honestly believe you can make a Christian sin against his own faith? On purpose, with him knowing and refusing?

First I don't agree with the convoluted logic that producing or selling a product is the same as participating in the use of the product.

Yes I do think you can make a Christian sin. Clearly from this thread that is a task that is all to easy.

Had you any type of deductive reasoning skills, you would understand that it wasn't the making of the product, it was the delivering, the enabling, the being part of the environment surrounding it which drove the couple to deny service. You have no idea what went through their minds when they did deny them service, since you aren't a Christian. You can't assume to know, yet you feel like you have the right to judge them with impunity. Despite your attempt to change the subject, I ask forgiveness for my sins all the time, but obligating someone to sin against their will is a different matter altogether. So thick headed you are.