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

[Tilly]

The left has no hesitation to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs when it comes to accommodating their protected class of perverts. It's all about votes. They're fascists in the truest definition.

They are hypocrites and are displaying intolerance and bigotry with a degree of viciousness that is quite shocking.
However, maybe this recent case is an indication that things are going to change:

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

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - A Kern County judge ruled in favor of a Bakersfield baker who refused to design a wedding cake for an already-married same-sex couple last year.

 

[BS Filter]

The left has no hesitation to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs when it comes to accommodating their protected class of perverts. It's all about votes. They're fascists in the truest definition.

They are hypocrites and are displaying intolerance and bigotry with a degree of viciousness that is quite shocking.
However, maybe this recent case is an indication that things are going to change:

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

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - A Kern County judge ruled in favor of a Bakersfield baker who refused to design a wedding cake for an already-married same-sex couple last year.

I'm sure the business owners will be harassed in some way, perhaps even to the point of violence in true fascist fashion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only twits believe that the law "violates the right of a Christian business owner and their belief that marriage is a male and female."

Anyone can believe that, and why not: that is a Constitutional right.

But in the public square the businessman has treat all fairly and squarely.

The way to get around it is not advertise publicly and go with word of mouth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The law does not violate the constitutional rights of the anti-homo mafia. People can believe whatever they want, but when in public, public law rules.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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?

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.

Actually this was me replying to you, not lumpy.

You said you had no problem with PC then said "out of control PC world".

I'm sorry, but that's saying you have a problem with it. If you don't want to say you have a problem with it, then don't say "out of control PC world"....

You seem to have a problem understanding distinctions. Not calling Hispanics "spics" is politically correct and is a good thing. Referring to transgenders as "Ze" or "Xemself" is out-of-control political correctness.

I didn't call you a bigot either. I said what you were proposing was going back to segregation laws. Why? Well, to point out your compartmentalization.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that what I was proposing was going back to segregation, you said: "You want to go back to segregation." There's no ambiguity here, you asserted that I want to go back to segregation.

If it's not what you meant then I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time.

 

[rightwinger]

The left has no hesitation to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs when it comes to accommodating their protected class of perverts. It's all about votes. They're fascists in the truest definition.

It is accommodating American citizens in accordance with the law

 

[rightwinger]

I’m not sure if this document has any clout, or of it’s not worth the paper it’s written on as it’s guidance from the AG (no comments on him personally please) that can maybe simply be ignored, but I found some useful interesting sections:


2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one's beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.

3. The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just persons, but persons collectively exercising their religion through churches or other religious denominations, religious organizations, schools, private associations, and even businesses.

12. RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.

RFRA applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not central to, or mandated by, a particular religious organization or tradition. Religious adherents will often be required to draw lines in the application of their religious beliefs, and government is not competent to assess the reasonablenessofsuchlinesdrawn,
norwoulditbeappropriateforgovernmenttodoso. Thus, for example, a government agency may not second-guess the determination of a factory worker that, consistent with his religious precepts, he can work on a line producing steel that might someday make its way into armaments but cannot work on a line producing the armaments themselves. Nor may the Department of Health and Human Services second-guess the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization's religious precepts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Also, I believe that health workers in the US, for example nurses, are permitted to abstain from participating in procedures that they conscientiously object to, for example sex reassignment surgery, abortion etc.

Seems to open a can of worms

Must all laws be bent to accommodate religious beliefs. Where do you draw the line?

 

[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.

Religion is a very effective vehicle for hatred
Hatred of those who are different or hold different views

After all......God hates fags

I don't dispute this. However, not all Christians think this way and in my opinion, the shop owner does not.

 

[BS Filter]

Only twits believe that the law "violates the right of a Christian business owner and their belief that marriage is a male and female."

Anyone can believe that, and why not: that is a Constitutional right.

But in the public square the businessman has treat all fairly and squarely.

The way to get around it is not advertise publicly and go with word of mouth.

No one forfeits their Constitutional rights when they have a business. Your corrupt laws have overstepped the Constitution. The USSC will fix it.

 

[BS Filter]

I’m not sure if this document has any clout, or of it’s not worth the paper it’s written on as it’s guidance from the AG (no comments on him personally please) that can maybe simply be ignored, but I found some useful interesting sections:


2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one's beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.

3. The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just persons, but persons collectively exercising their religion through churches or other religious denominations, religious organizations, schools, private associations, and even businesses.

12. RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.

RFRA applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not central to, or mandated by, a particular religious organization or tradition. Religious adherents will often be required to draw lines in the application of their religious beliefs, and government is not competent to assess the reasonablenessofsuchlinesdrawn,
norwoulditbeappropriateforgovernmenttodoso. Thus, for example, a government agency may not second-guess the determination of a factory worker that, consistent with his religious precepts, he can work on a line producing steel that might someday make its way into armaments but cannot work on a line producing the armaments themselves. Nor may the Department of Health and Human Services second-guess the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization's religious precepts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Also, I believe that health workers in the US, for example nurses, are permitted to abstain from participating in procedures that they conscientiously object to, for example sex reassignment surgery, abortion etc.

Seems to open a can of worms

Must all laws be bent to accommodate religious beliefs. Where do you draw the line?

The Constitution.

 

[BS Filter]

The left has no hesitation to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs when it comes to accommodating their protected class of perverts. It's all about votes. They're fascists in the truest definition.

It is accommodating American citizens in accordance with the law

Not if your law violates the Supreme law, the Constitution. Don't you understand that ?

 

[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.

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.

Again, I question the sincerity of their faith

To me, it is a way to harass same sex couples
They may pass a law saying you can marry......but see if you can find anyone to sell you a dress, a cake or rent you a reception hall

A difference of opinion on homosexuality is no indication that their faith is not sincere.

 

[rightwinger]

I’m not sure if this document has any clout, or of it’s not worth the paper it’s written on as it’s guidance from the AG (no comments on him personally please) that can maybe simply be ignored, but I found some useful interesting sections:


2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one's beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.

3. The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just persons, but persons collectively exercising their religion through churches or other religious denominations, religious organizations, schools, private associations, and even businesses.

12. RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.

RFRA applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not central to, or mandated by, a particular religious organization or tradition. Religious adherents will often be required to draw lines in the application of their religious beliefs, and government is not competent to assess the reasonablenessofsuchlinesdrawn,
norwoulditbeappropriateforgovernmenttodoso. Thus, for example, a government agency may not second-guess the determination of a factory worker that, consistent with his religious precepts, he can work on a line producing steel that might someday make its way into armaments but cannot work on a line producing the armaments themselves. Nor may the Department of Health and Human Services second-guess the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization's religious precepts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Also, I believe that health workers in the US, for example nurses, are permitted to abstain from participating in procedures that they conscientiously object to, for example sex reassignment surgery, abortion etc.

Seems to open a can of worms

Must all laws be bent to accommodate religious beliefs. Where do you draw the line?

The Constitution.

Laws have priority over religious beliefs

Always have

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

Again, I question the sincerity of their faith

To me, it is a way to harass same sex couples
They may pass a law saying you can marry......but see if you can find anyone to sell you a dress, a cake or rent you a reception hall

A difference of opinion on homosexuality is no indication that their faith is not sincere.

It is when that is the only area you object to in a marriage

I follow my religion when it comes to marriage of gays but am willing to bend my faith when it comes to marriages of adulterers, divorced people, atheists, pregnant brides

 

[BS Filter]

I’m not sure if this document has any clout, or of it’s not worth the paper it’s written on as it’s guidance from the AG (no comments on him personally please) that can maybe simply be ignored, but I found some useful interesting sections:


2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one's beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.

3. The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just persons, but persons collectively exercising their religion through churches or other religious denominations, religious organizations, schools, private associations, and even businesses.

12. RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.

RFRA applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not central to, or mandated by, a particular religious organization or tradition. Religious adherents will often be required to draw lines in the application of their religious beliefs, and government is not competent to assess the reasonablenessofsuchlinesdrawn,
norwoulditbeappropriateforgovernmenttodoso. Thus, for example, a government agency may not second-guess the determination of a factory worker that, consistent with his religious precepts, he can work on a line producing steel that might someday make its way into armaments but cannot work on a line producing the armaments themselves. Nor may the Department of Health and Human Services second-guess the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization's religious precepts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Also, I believe that health workers in the US, for example nurses, are permitted to abstain from participating in procedures that they conscientiously object to, for example sex reassignment surgery, abortion etc.

Seems to open a can of worms

Must all laws be bent to accommodate religious beliefs. Where do you draw the line?

The Constitution.

Laws have priority over religious beliefs

Always have

Study your Constitution and study the part about religious beliefs and "free exercise thereof".

 

[jillian]

Gay people should be thankful because Christians do not try to kill them in countries that they control like the Muslims do. I also find gay people to be very inconsiderate and rude towards people they disagree with…

You heard it here, folks....Gay people should be thankful that christians don't kill us.

Well, If you tried to live in an Muslim controlled country you’d probably be dead already. I find you great comic relief...
Control freak nature and all

which means what, snooks? that you have the right to harass everyone who isn't a white, straight, Christian male?

fundies of all stripes need to go the way of the dinosaur.

 

[jillian]

I’m not sure if this document has any clout, or of it’s not worth the paper it’s written on as it’s guidance from the AG (no comments on him personally please) that can maybe simply be ignored, but I found some useful interesting sections:


2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one's beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.

3. The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just persons, but persons collectively exercising their religion through churches or other religious denominations, religious organizations, schools, private associations, and even businesses.

12. RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.

RFRA applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not central to, or mandated by, a particular religious organization or tradition. Religious adherents will often be required to draw lines in the application of their religious beliefs, and government is not competent to assess the reasonablenessofsuchlinesdrawn,
norwoulditbeappropriateforgovernmenttodoso. Thus, for example, a government agency may not second-guess the determination of a factory worker that, consistent with his religious precepts, he can work on a line producing steel that might someday make its way into armaments but cannot work on a line producing the armaments themselves. Nor may the Department of Health and Human Services second-guess the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization's religious precepts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Also, I believe that health workers in the US, for example nurses, are permitted to abstain from participating in procedures that they conscientiously object to, for example sex reassignment surgery, abortion etc.

Seems to open a can of worms

Must all laws be bent to accommodate religious beliefs. Where do you draw the line?

The Constitution.

Laws have priority over religious beliefs

Always have

Study your Constitution and study the part about religious beliefs and "free exercise thereof".

anyone who actually HAS studied the constitution in real life and read actual Supreme Court cases knows that the free exercise of religion has nothing to do with public accommodation.

the standard, if you have the working synapses to follow it, is that if a law or regulation targets people of a specific religion, then it is probably unconstitutional. but if everyone, regardless of religion, is held to the same rules, it probably isn't.

and no brand of religion doesn't require you to be a bigoted lowlife loser. so there ya go.

 

[Tilly]

The left has no hesitation to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs when it comes to accommodating their protected class of perverts. It's all about votes. They're fascists in the truest definition.

They are hypocrites and are displaying intolerance and bigotry with a degree of viciousness that is quite shocking.
However, maybe this recent case is an indication that things are going to change:

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

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - A Kern County judge ruled in favor of a Bakersfield baker who refused to design a wedding cake for an already-married same-sex couple last year.

I'm sure the business owners will be harassed in some way, perhaps even to the point of violence in true fascist fashion.

It’s probably happened already - as it has with several other bakers, pastors, photographers etc.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Only twits believe that the law "violates the right of a Christian business owner and their belief that marriage is a male and female."

Anyone can believe that, and why not: that is a Constitutional right.

But in the public square the businessman has treat all fairly and squarely.

The way to get around it is not advertise publicly and go with word of mouth.

Nothing less than forced labor. Maybe force Jews and muslims to work in the bacon factory because gays like bacon.

 

[bodecea]

The left has no hesitation to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs when it comes to accommodating their protected class of perverts. It's all about votes. They're fascists in the truest definition.

What in the christian bible says that one can gain a business license but doesn't have to follow business law?