Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.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?
That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standardsPer 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?
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.
Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equalsThat s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standardsBut then would sell to an adulterer because they've picked and chosen which bits of the Bible they're going to look at... right?
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.
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.
That s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standardsThe 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?
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.
I agree that a lot of Christians cherrypick but in this case, the shop owner has a point. If an atheist woman goes to buy a dress, as long as it's a heterosexual marriage, the shop owner is not complicit in the woman's sin of atheism and there is no doctrine forbidding atheists to get married.
As I've said before, until I know more about the shop owner and her motives, I have to assume that she did not refuse to sell to gays, she refused to sell a dress for a gay wedding. It might not seem like much but it's a huge difference.
Jim Crow businesses made profit. Profit they would lose if they were to treat negroes as equalsThat 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.
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?
Um, no Lumpy, you're making kneejerk assumptions again. I did not indicate in any way that I have a problem with political correctness. I said "out of control PC world..."
Come off it. You want to go back to segregation.
And there it is. I should have taken bets as to how many posts it would take for someone to call me a bigot. It actually took longer than I thought it would. Kudos to you for being the first.
My niece is married to a black man whom I have the utmost respect for and they have two black children that I love dearly. Watch your step son.
This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.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?
This is the part where you play dumb, huh. The hateful queers knew the owners were Christians and they knew what would happen. That's why they were targeted. You can play dumb all you want, but this is what activists do to test new anti discrimination laws.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?
Religion is a very effective vehicle for hatredActually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry.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."
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.
Religion is a very effective vehicle for hatredActually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry.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."
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 of those who are different or hold different views
After all......God hates fags
Again, I question the sincerity of their faithThat s the part I find insulting......the tears and indignation of having to sacrifice their religious standardsThe 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?
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.
I agree that a lot of Christians cherrypick but in this case, the shop owner has a point. If an atheist woman goes to buy a dress, as long as it's a heterosexual marriage, the shop owner is not complicit in the woman's sin of atheism and there is no doctrine forbidding atheists to get married.
As I've said before, until I know more about the shop owner and her motives, I have to assume that she did not refuse to sell to gays, she refused to sell a dress for a gay wedding. It might not seem like much but it's a huge difference.
While most will not outwardly say it........I think they believe itReligion is a very effective vehicle for hatredActually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry.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."
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 of those who are different or hold different views
After all......God hates fags
So, you think all Christians believe that Westboro BS?
While most will not outwardly say it........I think they believe itReligion is a very effective vehicle for hatredActually I agree with your point in that it is a complex issue...but I also think their religion can be used to justify bigotry.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."
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 of those who are different or hold different views
After all......God hates fags
So, you think all Christians believe that Westboro BS?
Why wouldnt they?
Penn's PA laws don't support the bridal shop.
The callers should be arrested.
Their actions towards gays seems to indicate otherwiseWhile most will not outwardly say it........I think they believe itReligion is a very effective vehicle for hatredActually 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 of those who are different or hold different views
After all......God hates fags
So, you think all Christians believe that Westboro BS?
Why wouldnt they?
That's ridiculous...And bigoted...
Gays have spent centuries “going along” with what the Christian community wantsPenn's PA laws don't support the bridal shop.
The callers should be arrested.
Maybe we could settle the whole thing by sending out a questionaire, and all that don't agree can just be sumarily closed....
Look Jake, I am on record with saying that the business owners that are refusing service are in a business sense acting stupidly. Turning down business is NOT in their best interests...However, I disagree with these test attempts by the gay community to place their sexuality in your face....
Their actions towards gays seems to indicate otherwiseWhile most will not outwardly say it........I think they believe itReligion is a very effective vehicle for hatredNo 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 of those who are different or hold different views
After all......God hates fags
So, you think all Christians believe that Westboro BS?
Why wouldnt they?
That's ridiculous...And bigoted...
Why else would they single out gays for refusal of wedding services
Gays have spent centuries “going along” with what the Christian community wantsPenn's PA laws don't support the bridal shop.
The callers should be arrested.
Maybe we could settle the whole thing by sending out a questionaire, and all that don't agree can just be sumarily closed....
Look Jake, I am on record with saying that the business owners that are refusing service are in a business sense acting stupidly. Turning down business is NOT in their best interests...However, I disagree with these test attempts by the gay community to place their sexuality in your face....
Keep it to yourself, remain in the shadows, deny who you are
After a hard fight, they won the right to marry. They are not giving it up to appease Christian bigots
You are harassing his customers, he has a right to tell you to stopTheir actions towards gays seems to indicate otherwiseWhile most will not outwardly say it........I think they believe itReligion is a very effective vehicle for hatred
Hatred of those who are different or hold different views
After all......God hates fags
So, you think all Christians believe that Westboro BS?
Why wouldnt they?
That's ridiculous...And bigoted...
Why else would they single out gays for refusal of wedding services
Let's try a little exercise shall we?
Say, I am a devout Christian, and my mission is to go into gay bars and hand out literature on how to 'pray the gay out'....And every bar I go into the owner kicks me out, should I start a movement to get him closed down?
Ask the health departmentGays have spent centuries “going along” with what the Christian community wantsPenn's PA laws don't support the bridal shop.
The callers should be arrested.
Maybe we could settle the whole thing by sending out a questionaire, and all that don't agree can just be sumarily closed....
Look Jake, I am on record with saying that the business owners that are refusing service are in a business sense acting stupidly. Turning down business is NOT in their best interests...However, I disagree with these test attempts by the gay community to place their sexuality in your face....
Keep it to yourself, remain in the shadows, deny who you are
After a hard fight, they won the right to marry. They are not giving it up to appease Christian bigots
How about "No shoes, No shirts, No service" policies? Should we protest these as well?
Ask the health departmentGays have spent centuries “going along” with what the Christian community wantsPenn's PA laws don't support the bridal shop.
The callers should be arrested.
Maybe we could settle the whole thing by sending out a questionaire, and all that don't agree can just be sumarily closed....
Look Jake, I am on record with saying that the business owners that are refusing service are in a business sense acting stupidly. Turning down business is NOT in their best interests...However, I disagree with these test attempts by the gay community to place their sexuality in your face....
Keep it to yourself, remain in the shadows, deny who you are
After a hard fight, they won the right to marry. They are not giving it up to appease Christian bigots
How about "No shoes, No shirts, No service" policies? Should we protest these as well?
