Local Pennsylvania bridal shop harassed and threatened by LGBT activist after turning away same sex

[rightwinger]

I said "special needs" and I gave an example. I'm sorry, but I don't think society should be held hostage because some twit is confused about what gender he/she/it is.

Then there's the case of the black woman suing Wal-Mart because she was offended by the fact that the store had black hair care products in a locked case and then escorted her to the checkout like she was a criminal. Thing is, Wal-Mart and other stores put items that are often shoplifted in locked cases such as electronics and even razor blades as a loss prevention measure. What's more, she most likely knew this.

Then there was the case where someone took a picture of a vase that had cotton plants in it at Hobby Lobby, called it racist and posted it on social media.

The point is, while sometimes people are offended for legitimate reasons, a lot of times it's for stupid shit like this. Where does it end? Being offended has become a license to stop the world just because some powderpuff got his tender widdle feelings hurt.

Exactly. That's why people like myself have been pushing for more critical thinking skills for the last 15 - 20 years or so.

Yes, there are laws. But I'm not sure they apply in this case. The shop owner is bound by law not to discriminate against gays when hiring or employing but I'm not sure it applies in a case where they refuse service or sale because they feel it would be enabling the sinners. I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

I don't think you're aware that there are two different words to use here and they have different meanings. "Scold" is when you verbally discipline someone and "scald" is to burn with hot water or liquid. Therefore, if you throw hot water on someone you are just scalding them and scalding is not the same as berating.

But besides all that, this is what I'm talking about when it comes to people being offended: Some get so emotional they lose their objectivity and blow it all out of proportion. The shop owner did not say the couple was not welcome in the shop, she only told them that they didn't believe in gay marriage and therefore were bound by their beliefs not to sell them a wedding dress. That's it. She didn't tell them to leave or that they were not welcome.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equals
Same can be said for same sex

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equals
Same can be said for same sex

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

 

[Tilly]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

Judge rules in favor of California baker who refused to design wedding cake for same-sex couple

 

[Coyote]

Where do you draw the line? Interracial weddings? (Yes religion was the excuse there too) Refusing to serve gays in restaurants? Refusing mixed race couples a hotel room? All in the name of religious freedom? PC may be overstretched but so is religious freedom.

If a business chooses not to serve gays they should clearly post it. Not wait until a couple has come in, picked their dream dress and then find out they will not be allowed to purchase it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

It could also be argued that the shop owner will suffer indignity if she were forced to engage in an activity that would make her uncomfortable and violates her religious beliefs.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the question as to whether or not these people have the right to deny service they feel goes against their religious beliefs. On one hand you could argue that it is discrimination but on the other hand, you could argue for religious freedom.

The point I've been trying to make in this discussion (apparently unsuccessfully) is that everything, including cases like this, occur in a much larger, complicated context. It's not always as simple as saying the shop owners are bigots. There are always other things to consider, such as their religious beliefs. But too often people are too lazy to consider the bigger picture. It's much easier to just say "Screw 'em, they're just bigots. Sue them at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars and force them to into practices that would cause them indignity and emotional stress."

 

[Coyote]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

It could also be argued that the shop owner will suffer indignity if she were forced to engage in an activity that would make her uncomfortable and violates her religious beliefs.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the question as to whether or not these people have the right to deny service they feel goes against their religious beliefs. On one hand you could argue that it is discrimination but on the other hand, you could argue for religious freedom.

The point I've been trying to make in this discussion (apparently unsuccessfully) is that everything, including cases like this, occur in a much larger, complicated context. It's not always as simple as saying the shop owners are bigots. There are always other things to consider, such as their religious beliefs. But too often people are too lazy to consider the bigger picture. It's much easier to just say "Screw 'em, they're just bigots. Sue them at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars and force them to into practices that would cause them indignity and emotional stress."

Actually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry. I dont agree with people who deliberately try to bait people into refusing service and then sue them and destroy their business. But if a couple came into a wedding store with out any idea they would not be served like any other couple, and were told no they would neef to go elsewhete that is not right either.

 

[j-mac]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

It could also be argued that the shop owner will suffer indignity if she were forced to engage in an activity that would make her uncomfortable and violates her religious beliefs.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the question as to whether or not these people have the right to deny service they feel goes against their religious beliefs. On one hand you could argue that it is discrimination but on the other hand, you could argue for religious freedom.

The point I've been trying to make in this discussion (apparently unsuccessfully) is that everything, including cases like this, occur in a much larger, complicated context. It's not always as simple as saying the shop owners are bigots. There are always other things to consider, such as their religious beliefs. But too often people are too lazy to consider the bigger picture. It's much easier to just say "Screw 'em, they're just bigots. Sue them at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars and force them to into practices that would cause them indignity and emotional stress."

Actually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry. I dont agree with people who deliberately try to bait people into refusing service and then sue them and destroy their business. But if a couple came into a wedding store with out any idea they would not be served like any other couple, and were told no they would neef to go elsewhete that is not right either.

Just wondering if you feel the same way about this incident...

 

[rightwinger]

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equals
Same can be said for same sex

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

If they were a “Christian Bridal Shop” did they reject couples guilty of adultery, atheists, divorced and non Christian couples?

I suspect hypocrisy

 

[rightwinger]

Where do you draw the line? Interracial weddings? (Yes religion was the excuse there too) Refusing to serve gays in restaurants? Refusing mixed race couples a hotel room? All in the name of religious freedom? PC may be overstretched but so is religious freedom.

If a business chooses not to serve gays they should clearly post it. Not wait until a couple has come in, picked their dream dress and then find out they will not be allowed to purchase it.

No

Refusal to serve gays who are in compliance with our laws should not be permitted

If your religious beliefs interfere with running a business in a lawful manner, you need to consider another business

 

[j-mac]

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equals
Same can be said for same sex

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

If they were a “Christian Bridal Shop” did they reject couples guilty of adultery, atheists, divorced and non Christian couples?

I suspect hypocrisy

Suspect what you want....Tell me what do you think of the video I posted for Coyote?

 

[BS Filter]

This is what the hateful queers do. They find a Christian business owner, set them up as a target, then take them down. They demand that people leave them alone, but they can't leave others alone. They're hateful hypocritical trash.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

It could also be argued that the shop owner will suffer indignity if she were forced to engage in an activity that would make her uncomfortable and violates her religious beliefs.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the question as to whether or not these people have the right to deny service they feel goes against their religious beliefs. On one hand you could argue that it is discrimination but on the other hand, you could argue for religious freedom.

The point I've been trying to make in this discussion (apparently unsuccessfully) is that everything, including cases like this, occur in a much larger, complicated context. It's not always as simple as saying the shop owners are bigots. There are always other things to consider, such as their religious beliefs. But too often people are too lazy to consider the bigger picture. It's much easier to just say "Screw 'em, they're just bigots. Sue them at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars and force them to into practices that would cause them indignity and emotional stress."

Actually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry.

No one ever hates for the sake of hating, there's always a reason. So, rather than religion being used to justify bigotry, I think it would be more accurate in this case to say that bigotry is simply the product of the religious beliefs. Their beliefs inform their view of homosexuality, not the other way around. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equals
Same can be said for same sex

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

If they were a “Christian Bridal Shop” did they reject couples guilty of adultery, atheists, divorced and non Christian couples?

I suspect hypocrisy

Right. And did the people calling the shop exercise the tolerance they preach about?

I suspect hypocrisy.

 

[BS Filter]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

It could also be argued that the shop owner will suffer indignity if she were forced to engage in an activity that would make her uncomfortable and violates her religious beliefs.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the question as to whether or not these people have the right to deny service they feel goes against their religious beliefs. On one hand you could argue that it is discrimination but on the other hand, you could argue for religious freedom.

The point I've been trying to make in this discussion (apparently unsuccessfully) is that everything, including cases like this, occur in a much larger, complicated context. It's not always as simple as saying the shop owners are bigots. There are always other things to consider, such as their religious beliefs. But too often people are too lazy to consider the bigger picture. It's much easier to just say "Screw 'em, they're just bigots. Sue them at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars and force them to into practices that would cause them indignity and emotional stress."

Actually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry.

No one ever hates for the sake of hating, there's always a reason. So, rather than religion being used to justify bigotry, I think it would be more accurate in this case to say that bigotry is simply the product of the religious beliefs. Their beliefs inform their view of homosexuality, not the other way around. At least, that's how I see it.

I agree, somewhat. Everyone is a "bigot". That word has been way overused.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I said "special needs" and I gave an example. I'm sorry, but I don't think society should be held hostage because some twit is confused about what gender he/she/it is.

Then there's the case of the black woman suing Wal-Mart because she was offended by the fact that the store had black hair care products in a locked case and then escorted her to the checkout like she was a criminal. Thing is, Wal-Mart and other stores put items that are often shoplifted in locked cases such as electronics and even razor blades as a loss prevention measure. What's more, she most likely knew this.

Then there was the case where someone took a picture of a vase that had cotton plants in it at Hobby Lobby, called it racist and posted it on social media.

The point is, while sometimes people are offended for legitimate reasons, a lot of times it's for stupid shit like this. Where does it end? Being offended has become a license to stop the world just because some powderpuff got his tender widdle feelings hurt.

Exactly. That's why people like myself have been pushing for more critical thinking skills for the last 15 - 20 years or so.

Yes, there are laws. But I'm not sure they apply in this case. The shop owner is bound by law not to discriminate against gays when hiring or employing but I'm not sure it applies in a case where they refuse service or sale because they feel it would be enabling the sinners. I guess we'll see how the case comes out.

I don't think you're aware that there are two different words to use here and they have different meanings. "Scold" is when you verbally discipline someone and "scald" is to burn with hot water or liquid. Therefore, if you throw hot water on someone you are just scalding them and scalding is not the same as berating.

But besides all that, this is what I'm talking about when it comes to people being offended: Some get so emotional they lose their objectivity and blow it all out of proportion. The shop owner did not say the couple was not welcome in the shop, she only told them that they didn't believe in gay marriage and therefore were bound by their beliefs not to sell them a wedding dress. That's it. She didn't tell them to leave or that they were not welcome.

Per your last few sentances...what is the difference? If you go to a store that sells specialty items uou need only to be told they wont sell to you specifically...how do you distort thay into anything remotely welcoming?

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Not all for profit, however they're willing to sell to others that would, in your words "make them complicit in their sin", but they're cherry picking what they feel makes them complicit in their sin.

 

[Coyote]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

It could also be argued that the shop owner will suffer indignity if she were forced to engage in an activity that would make her uncomfortable and violates her religious beliefs.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the question as to whether or not these people have the right to deny service they feel goes against their religious beliefs. On one hand you could argue that it is discrimination but on the other hand, you could argue for religious freedom.

The point I've been trying to make in this discussion (apparently unsuccessfully) is that everything, including cases like this, occur in a much larger, complicated context. It's not always as simple as saying the shop owners are bigots. There are always other things to consider, such as their religious beliefs. But too often people are too lazy to consider the bigger picture. It's much easier to just say "Screw 'em, they're just bigots. Sue them at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars and force them to into practices that would cause them indignity and emotional stress."

Actually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry. I dont agree with people who deliberately try to bait people into refusing service and then sue them and destroy their business. But if a couple came into a wedding store with out any idea they would not be served like any other couple, and were told no they would neef to go elsewhete that is not right either.

Just wondering if you feel the same way about this incident...

Yup. If they were behaving, and quietly enjoying a coffee break after leafleting - he had no right to deny them service or kick them out based on their beliefs.

 

[Coyote]

A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.

Excellent news. Maybe a useful precedent
Feb 5 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

It could also be argued that the shop owner will suffer indignity if she were forced to engage in an activity that would make her uncomfortable and violates her religious beliefs.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the question as to whether or not these people have the right to deny service they feel goes against their religious beliefs. On one hand you could argue that it is discrimination but on the other hand, you could argue for religious freedom.

The point I've been trying to make in this discussion (apparently unsuccessfully) is that everything, including cases like this, occur in a much larger, complicated context. It's not always as simple as saying the shop owners are bigots. There are always other things to consider, such as their religious beliefs. But too often people are too lazy to consider the bigger picture. It's much easier to just say "Screw 'em, they're just bigots. Sue them at the tune of tens of thousands of dollars and force them to into practices that would cause them indignity and emotional stress."

Actually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry.

No one ever hates for the sake of hating, there's always a reason. So, rather than religion being used to justify bigotry, I think it would be more accurate in this case to say that bigotry is simply the product of the religious beliefs. Their beliefs inform their view of homosexuality, not the other way around. At least, that's how I see it.

Hatred is usually based on fear and ignorance...but that is an interesting way to put it and a good point. But why is homosexuality so much in the forefront and other sins largely ignored when it comes to serving the public?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The shop owner did not refuse them because they were gay, she refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress which she felt would make her complicit in their sin.

Christians have a saying: Love the sinner, hate the sin. Of course not all Christians abide by this but I think most do. In this particular case, I have seen or heard nothing to indicate the shop owner hates gays.

But then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?

That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standards

Yet, they only look at profit when they sell to adulterers, atheists or the previously divorced

1.) If it was all about profit then wouldn't it make sense to sell to gays for more profit? 2.) They didn't refuse to sell to gays, they refused to sell a gay couple a bridal dress that, in their eyes, would make them complicit in their sin.

Look, I agree with you on the cherrypicking and hypocrisy, just don't make more out of it than what's actually there.

Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equals
Same can be said for same sex

Bullshit. If they billed themselves as a Christian bridal shop that catered to a predominately Christian clientele then I might be inclined to agree.

There have already been a number of cases like this: A bakery in Bakersfield CA just won a lawsuit against them recently for the same thing.; The Oregon bakery that lost their case and had to pay a fine of $135,000.; A Kentucky T-Shirt store owner won his case after being sued for refusing to print "Gay Pride" T-shirts.; The case of the Florist in Washington who refused to sell flowers for a gay wedding. etc., etc.

In the out-of-control PC world we live in today, refusing service to gays is a huge financial risk and everybody knows it.

Out of control because people can't treat people like second class citizens?

Come off it. You want to go back to segregation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where do you draw the line? Interracial weddings? (Yes religion was the excuse there too) Refusing to serve gays in restaurants? Refusing mixed race couples a hotel room? All in the name of religious freedom? PC may be overstretched but so is religious freedom.

If a business chooses not to serve gays they should clearly post it. Not wait until a couple has come in, picked their dream dress and then find out they will not be allowed to purchase it.

No, if businesses choose not to serve gay people, they shouldn't make a business in the first place, or go online where they can't see their customers to make such a decision.

 

[Lysistrata]

This is what the hateful queers do. They find a Christian business owner, set them up as a target, then take them down. They demand that people leave them alone, but they can't leave others alone. They're hateful hypocritical trash.

Perhaps the "hateful queers" simply search advertising for the goods they wish to purchase. I know this is what I would do. How in the heck would anyone know from advertising that some shop owner is a member of one of those Christian sects that oppose "participating" in same-sex weddings? You can't turn this situation on its head. Did the members of these Christian sects ever include their membership and the restrictions imposed by this membership in their advertising? Why are you trying to blame this on LGBTs? They are not responsible for the situation; they were were simply shopping. How are they supposed to know about someone else's personal predilections?

Also, as the "Christian" (not ALL Christians, thank you!) bakeries argue, wedding cakes require their personal artistry. To what extent is personal artistry involved with the operations of this shop? Do the proprietors of this shop design and sew personalized gowns for each individual customer or do they merely sell pre-manufactured gowns?