No Cake for You

[TemplarKormac]

They do love a good "martyr" story, however, the bakery broke the law as stated in the ding-dong's OP.

That's cute, but being the little l libertarian that I am, I stated how wrong the law was. Oh yeah, I will keep brandishing the Burwell decision until someone manages to read it. However, it is ironic you would refer to martyrs after the way you guys wailed and moaned about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, how ironic indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Colorado case.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Colorado Bakery Agrees To Dog Wedding Cake Despite Turning Away Gays

More evidence of how phoney these sanctimonious haters are.

So now the far left drones are comparing "gays" to dogs..

How low can they go to push their propaganda!

No, the bakers were comparing dog marriages to opposite sex marriages, nitwit.

Wrong far left drone, your far left propaganda is doing that!

So see how posting far left propaganda does not add anything!

So you can see how the far left will compare "gays" to dogs!

There are those that claim being "gay" is a race and there are others are trying to make being "gay" a religion..

Why couldn't being gay be a religious belief? These people are claiming that being heterosexual is a religious belief.

See how the far left will push their propaganda that does not add anything to a thread.

So now being "gay" is a religion to the far left drones..

Yet this drone was not upset when a far left blog site compared "gays" to dogs.

Isn't being heterosexual a religion to the bakers? That's what they were claiming. They were claiming that heterosexuality was a religious belief to them so they could hide behind religion to get permission to discriminate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Oh Gawd, not this again. So they don't get to use their religion to discriminate.....boo fucking hoo!

Coming from a neo-liberal who cries racism at the drop of a hat, thats hilarious!

This thread isn't about racism, it's about discrimination.

What exactly is racism? A form of discrimination, you dolt.

You idiot, the subject of this thread is based on sexual orientation, not race. I don't know why you want to hijack your own thread.

Discrimination is discrimination is it not? I don't know why you want to be so dense, but hey, something has to fill that vacuous cranial cavity of yours.

Moving along.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The lesbian's pay taxes that help build the roads that lead to the bakery, pay taxes so the police can protect the bakery, and so the fire department can put out the fire, when the bakery catches fire.

But the couple paid their taxes, signed all the forms, jumped through all the hoops and put down their own money to make that business. But hey, equality right? Paying taxes is easy, starting a business isn't.

The lesbians can go to the bakery on the streets that their taxes pay for and buy all the cookies and pastries they want. No one has denied them service at all.

It is an indisputable fact they were denied service. Leave it to a RWnut to try to dispute the indisputable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Once again, stop being a vindictive twat.

Uh huh...all those black folks wanting to eat at the Woolworth's counter...they were "vindictive twats" too?

Sure took you an awful long time to get really mad about PA laws...51 years...and you're not even attacking the Federal PA laws, just the little state and local ones. Some "states rights" advocate you are.

Again, that was systemic government mandated racism, at a point of sale, with no customization or moral background issues. You are trying to compare apples and Volkswagons.

Race and sexual orientation are two different things no matter how much you want them to be the same so you can fuck over people who disagree with you, and worse, you government to do your dirty work.

You do realize that race is not the only protected class in PA laws, right? You can't keep playing the "you gays don't have it as bad as blacks did" card since religion, gender, country of origin are ALL included.

Discrimination is discrimination. Go ahead and get rid of all PA laws, but you gotta start with the Federal ones, not these little local laws. Where is your "states rights" defense? You don't like states rights when the laws protect the gays do you?

These laws protect some people at the expense of punishing others. The end result is not worthy of the use of government to ruin someone.

The whole idea of "Protected Classes" is an abomination, making some people more equal than others to right wrongs, that did happen, yes, but more and more are done out of spite and vitriol.

So you'd rather the gay people be punished by not allowing them to shop at their local bakery.

Actually, there were at least 8 other bakeries in the Gresham area. But hey, this had to be the lucky one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument as to how baking a cake somehow is forcing the baker to betray his faith.

It doesn't. Baking the cake wasn't the problem. They were asked to bring the cake to the wedding these two were having. Personally, I would have made the cake and said, "Get someone else to take it to your wedding, you got what you paid for."

They would have fulfilled their end by making the cake, and fulfilled their religious convictions by not taking it to the wedding.

And I will posit this:

If you ask a devout Christian to betray his beliefs, he will not. If you ask a gay person to stop being gay, they will not. Understand now?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The lesbian's pay taxes that help build the roads that lead to the bakery, pay taxes so the police can protect the bakery, and so the fire department can put out the fire, when the bakery catches fire.

But the couple paid their taxes, signed all the forms, jumped through all the hoops and put down their own money to make that business. But hey, equality right? Paying taxes is easy, starting a business isn't.

The lesbians can go to the bakery on the streets that their taxes pay for and buy all the cookies and pastries they want. No one has denied them service at all.

Exactly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument as to how baking a cake somehow is forcing the baker to betray his faith.

It doesn't. Baking the cake wasn't the problem. They were asked to bring the cake to the wedding these two were having. Personally, I would have made the cake and said, "Get someone else to take it to your wedding, you got what you paid for."

That is false.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Only until it's something they don't like...like protecting tax paying gay Americans from discrimination in public accommodations.

They're totally cool with religion being protected at the Federal level though...

Violates the constitution.

What does?

Forcing businesses to commit sacrilege in order to stay in business.

A cake isn't a sacred object.

Wedding is a sacrament, you retard.

Sure thing. Those who pray together, stay together?...until they decide to divorce?

 

[Carla_Danger]

They do love a good "martyr" story, however, the bakery broke the law as stated in the ding-dong's OP.

That's cute, but being the little l libertarian that I am, I stated how wrong the law was. Oh yeah, I will keep brandishing the Burwell decision until someone manages to read it. However, it is ironic you would refer to martyrs after the way you guys wailed and moaned about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, how ironic indeed.

Neither are any sort of comparison to the topic. You're comparing apples to cantaloupe.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument as to how baking a cake somehow is forcing the baker to betray his faith.

It doesn't. Baking the cake wasn't the problem. They were asked to bring the cake to the wedding these two were having. Personally, I would have made the cake and said, "Get someone else to take it to your wedding, you got what you paid for."

They would have fulfilled their end by making the cake, and fulfilled their religious convictions by not taking it to the wedding.

And I will posit this:

If you ask a devout Christian to betray his beliefs, he will not. If you ask a gay person to stop being gay, they will not. Understand now?

Again, from your link..

"However, when Williamette Week made various calls to “Sweet Cakes,” asking for them to make a cake for a baby out of wedlock, a “divorce party,” and a stem-cell research success story, the company agreed – a direction violation of their previously stated religious convictions."

 

[WorldWatcher]

It doesn't. Baking the cake wasn't the problem. They were asked to bring the cake to the wedding these two were having.

That is false.

The real sequence of events is listed in the ruling. There cake tasting had never gotten to any discussion of actually baking the cake (i.e. design), there was no offer of baking the cake and having the complainants pick it up, there was no offer to bake the cake but not deliver it. As soon as the Klein's found out that the cake was for two brides, they refused service.

Making up things in a debate that can be checked isn't a way to "win" a debate.

Oh, BTW - on page for it notes that the material facts are undisputed by both parties - something required as part of the parties seeking a summary judgement.

BOLI-sweetcakes.pdf

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

They do love a good "martyr" story, however, the bakery broke the law as stated in the ding-dong's OP.

That's cute, but being the little l libertarian that I am, I stated how wrong the law was. Oh yeah, I will keep brandishing the Burwell decision until someone manages to read it. However, it is ironic you would refer to martyrs after the way you guys wailed and moaned about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, how ironic indeed.

You ignored this before...

But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination. Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn rsquo t allow discrimination.

 

[bodecea]

I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument as to how baking a cake somehow is forcing the baker to betray his faith.

It doesn't. Baking the cake wasn't the problem. They were asked to bring the cake to the wedding these two were having. Personally, I would have made the cake and said, "Get someone else to take it to your wedding, you got what you paid for."

They would have fulfilled their end by making the cake, and fulfilled their religious convictions by not taking it to the wedding.

And I will posit this:

If you ask a devout Christian to betray his beliefs, he will not. If you ask a gay person to stop being gay, they will not. Understand now?

If you have a problem with certain kinds of marriages, maybe you shouldn't be in the wedding business...just like if you have a problem with certain kinds of passengers, maybe you shouldn't be in the taxi business. Understand now?

 

[koshergrl]

They weren't in the wedding business.
They were in the cake business.

There. That was easy.

 

[JoeB131]

How can I be a homophobe if I would vote for gay marriage to be made legal via state legislative action, or would glady attend a gay wedding?

My issue is with forcing others to accept all this via government power, not the end result.

Yes, yes, you're not a bigot, you just want to protect the bigots from mean old government.

I'm sure you didn't make as big a stink about Matt Shephard as you did about this bigot who had to bake a cake.

 

[koshergrl]

How can I be a homophobe if I would vote for gay marriage to be made legal via state legislative action, or would glady attend a gay wedding?

My issue is with forcing others to accept all this via government power, not the end result.

Yes, yes, you're not a bigot, you just want to protect the bigots from mean old government.

I'm sure you didn't make as big a stink about Matt Shephard as you did about this bigot who had to bake a cake.

"Had to bake a cake".

Apparently payback for murder?

How flipping insane...

 

[JoeB131]

The use of government force to make people comply with a good or service that is readily available from other sources and is not an economic of life necessity is worse than two people having to find another baker and maybe having their feelings hurt.

Why?

frankly, I think that is exactly the kind of thing I WANT government doing. Let the bigots know we ain't putting up with their shit anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what's really funny? The biggest support for gays and PA laws comes from the black community. I wonder why that is?

Ask the question differently, and you would get a different answer.

How about this way?

"Should a business that refuses to provide a service for a gay marriage ceremony be punished by either fining or revocation of their business license?"

At least this poll is honest enough to show the question up front.

Guy, you can't make a law without requiring some kind of fine or punishment.

For instance, you know when I started making sure i put my seatbelt on every time I drove? When a cop wrote me a $55.00 ticket for it.

 

[JoeB131]

It's called having an opinion skippy.

Please tell me why it is worse to have your feelings hurt depending on who you like to bugger.

I've known gay people who've been fired, I've known gay people who've been beaten up, for who they are.

It won't kill the christians to bake a fucking cake when they are in the business of BAKING CAKES!