Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

[koshergrl]

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

 

[Nosmo King]

But we don't live in a society where you can do what you like.

"I don't want to pay taxes, no means no"
"I don't want to keep the noise down on my music, no means no"

Problem is you don't live in a country where anarchy reigns supreme. Sorry.

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

What becomes of law breakers but the effects of government force?

 

[Katzndogz]

You dodged an actual answer because the one answer you want to give makes you look like an asshat.

The question suggested asshatery.

The question is perfectly valid, and you refuse to answer it because you are a gutless coward.

You have now joined the ranks of posters I address as "bitch-tits"

I answered your question. You posed an extreme situation wholly unrelated to the topic. That Catholic book store is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Melissa's Sweet Cakes is not a church subsidized business. That Satanist was going to use that crucifix to serve his religious purposes. Those two women wanted a wedding cake.

Now, pose a better question and you'll get a better answer.

Meanwhile, stop with the Trumpian sixth grade insults and you'll get the respect one adult should give another.

They wanted a wedding cake. What did they get? They did not get Melisssa to make them the cake. They had to get the cake elsewhere. They won a sum of money that they still don't have. For the last three and a half years and continuing the lesbos have had their lives made a misery. They each lost their job. They had to move and could not find a place. They live hand to mouth on what ever they can scrabble up.

While they certainly deserve everything they are getting, what is it that you believe they won?

Why on earth, in 2016 America can you possibly say they deserve to suffer while standing up for their rights?

What is it with you Conservative haters? Why do you think persecution is the right thing, the good thing, the American thing to do? Do you love America because you clearly hate Americans.

Yet you believe that the Kliens deserved to be punished for standing up for their rights. Should bigots be crushed or not?

The pervs weren't standing up for their rights. They were standing up for teaching those Christians a lesson. Who got taught the lesson?

 

[boedicca]

Baking a cake for a wedding reception is "direct participation in the wedding"? Since when?

The cake doesn't bake itself, evul twin.

How many times does "baking a cake" appear in the Christer bible?

Does the bible admonish people not to sin? Each sinful act doesn't have to be carefully enumerated. If you believe the act to be a sin, don't do it.

Personally, I am fine with gays and lesbians being able to get married. My objections are to the forced participation of others in their plans.

Everyone has the Right To Be Left Alone.

They do. But not people who run businesses. They've signed up to something.

They do, however, have the choice to not run a business. Or to run a business in a manner that won't conflict with their religious beliefs.

It's like religious people setting up a shop selling devil worshiping things, but then not selling to devil worshipers. Kind of doesn't make sense.

That is complete poppycock. Opening up a shop does not void one's Constitutional Rights, as much as Progressives would like that to be the case.

 

[Katzndogz]

You dodged an actual answer because the one answer you want to give makes you look like an asshat.

The question suggested asshatery.

The question is perfectly valid, and you refuse to answer it because you are a gutless coward.

You have now joined the ranks of posters I address as "bitch-tits"

I answered your question. You posed an extreme situation wholly unrelated to the topic. That Catholic book store is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Melissa's Sweet Cakes is not a church subsidized business. That Satanist was going to use that crucifix to serve his religious purposes. Those two women wanted a wedding cake.

Now, pose a better question and you'll get a better answer.

Meanwhile, stop with the Trumpian sixth grade insults and you'll get the respect one adult should give another.

They wanted a wedding cake. What did they get? They did not get Melisssa to make them the cake. They had to get the cake elsewhere. They won a sum of money that they still don't have. For the last three and a half years and continuing the lesbos have had their lives made a misery. They each lost their job. They had to move and could not find a place. They live hand to mouth on what ever they can scrabble up.

While they certainly deserve everything they are getting, what is it that you believe they won?

There will be a lot of Melissas unless the fundies evolve.

Melissa isn't hurting a bit. Her business is bigger than ever. They have half a million in the bank after the fine is paid. They have been traveling the country giving interviews.

There should only be more Melisssas and more pervs experiencing the same as the lesbos pervs.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I said no and meant no. Can someone force you out of your house and into a concert hall where the music is too loud? Paying taxes is an arrangement between a citizen and the government. It does not involve the whims of another citizen.

We are supposed to live in a society where we do whst we like. It's called freedom. Why do you dislike it so much? What makes someone else's judgment on what you do better than your own? How personal does interference need to be before you say no?

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

 

[Dragonlady]

Hopefully the $100,000+ from the Sweet Cakes bigots has helped alleviate their pain.

If you read the link, you will note that they don't have the money, nor do they want it. The filed a legal complaint. It was the bakers who turned this into a witch hunt, and published their names and addresses.

Standing up for your legal rights should not result in death threats and abuse.

 

[koshergrl]

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

This is my country you brit faggot. We aren't interesting in becoming more like your inbred island, we never have been. Get over it.

 

[boedicca]

The cake doesn't bake itself, evul twin.

How many times does "baking a cake" appear in the Christer bible?

Does the bible admonish people not to sin? Each sinful act doesn't have to be carefully enumerated. If you believe the act to be a sin, don't do it.

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

So, what you're saying is that everyone should walk on eggshells around gays and any other protected SJW groups.

Here's a wee clue: There is not a Right To Be Unoffended.

 

[koshergrl]

How many times does "baking a cake" appear in the Christer bible?

Does the bible admonish people not to sin? Each sinful act doesn't have to be carefully enumerated. If you believe the act to be a sin, don't do it.

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

So, what you're saying is that everyone should walk on eggshells around gays and any other protected SJW groups.

Here's a wee clue: There is not a Right To Be Unoffended.

As the faggot brigade is finding.

 

[Katzndogz]

But you're picking and choosing where no means no. This is the problem.

Can the govt force you to do things?

Yes, it can force you to go to war, force you to go to prison, force you to pay them money, force you to do quite a number of things, actually.

No, you're not supposed to live in a society where you do whatever you like.

If you didn't notice there is something called the Bill of Rights and the theory behind rights is that you can do what you like AS LONG AS you don't harm or hurt other people. In other words, all rights have LIMITS.

I'm sorry no one managed to tell you this before. But it's there.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

They are being richly rewarded for standing up for their beliefs. Maybe it's because God is blessing them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

This is my country you brit faggot. We aren't interesting in becoming more like your inbred island, we never have been. Get over it.

See the kind of trash we have to deal with Tommy Tainant?

 

[boedicca]

How many times does "baking a cake" appear in the Christer bible?

Does the bible admonish people not to sin? Each sinful act doesn't have to be carefully enumerated. If you believe the act to be a sin, don't do it.

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.

When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.

 

[bodecea]

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government not on individuals. This must be the first you are hearing this.

There is no right to not be offended. There is no right to not get your feelings hurt. The government can force you to give it money. When an individual forces you to give him money it's theft.

The government cannot force you to be nice. It can not force you to be a friend or a good neighbor. It cannot force a business to provide good customer service. The government cannot stop someone from being nasty, or insulting. It won't stop anyone from hurting your feelings even if you cry for a week.

Where do you get these nonsense ideas?

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

This is my country you brit faggot. We aren't interesting in becoming more like your inbred island, we never have been. Get over it.

And yet...you tried to pass off a British video as some born and bred Oregon rancher...lololol

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I didn't say the Bill of Rights was a limitation on the people. You just decided I had said that. What I said was that the ideals of the Bill of Rights exist and the US is bound up in this theory whether you like it or not.

I didn't say there was a right to not be offended. However we live in a society and the people have decided how they want society to be, and they make rules and regulations to make sure that happens. And yes, there are laws that say you can't do some things, things that hurt people.

No, government can't force you to be nice. But it CAN force you to respect the laws of the land. And if those laws say a business can't discriminate against someone based on gender, sexual preference, skin color, ethnicity, then YOU CAN'T DO IT.

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

This is my country you brit faggot. We aren't interesting in becoming more like your inbred island, we never have been. Get over it.

See the kind of trash we have to deal with Tommy Tainant?

Its bizarre. You need to look at the education system if you continue to produce such idiocy.

 

[bodecea]

Does the bible admonish people not to sin? Each sinful act doesn't have to be carefully enumerated. If you believe the act to be a sin, don't do it.

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.

When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.

The state of Oregon disagrees. And they disagreed a few years ago when a woman was discriminated against by her employer based on her religion. Same law.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So hurt feelings of a protected class equates to ruining the livelyhood of people selling cakes?

And government force is government force. One wonders if someone like you supports government overwhelming force in something as trivial as a baker not wanting to bake a cake, what other uses of force you could support against people you don't like.

I don't wonder. I know exactly what these people are about.

Its not the Governments job to protect discrimination and hate. Backward fundie slags need to evolve and join this century.

This is my country you brit faggot. We aren't interesting in becoming more like your inbred island, we never have been. Get over it.

See the kind of trash we have to deal with Tommy Tainant?

Its bizarre. You need to look at the education system if you continue to produce such idiocy.

Yeah we're still fighting Noah's Ark being part of the science curriculum in some parts of the country

 

[Katzndogz]

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.

When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.

The state of Oregon disagrees.

True. The perv couple won. What did they win? They are much worse off now than they were. They could still lose on appeal. Would you want to win what they won?

 

[MaryL]

Can we have a collective "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

In all seriousness, I am absolutely against anyone harassing these women, but they are the ones who went after the Klein's.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

It's just a cake, Laurel Bowman-Cryer used to tell her wife, Rachel. But three and a half years have passed, and the hate mail keeps coming.

Back in 2013, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa made headlines when they refused to make the lesbians' wedding cake. A state official, in a move that's redefined his political career, eventually ordered the bakers to pay $135,000.

The Bowman-Cryers have received thousands of Facebook messages, each one calling them fat or evil, the dumb lesbians who ruined those Christian bakers' lives.

As they waited for their daughter's school bus this May, Rachel's cell phone dinged with a new missive.

"I am buying up my ammo right now you filthy, ugly, disgusting, fat, stupid, cruel, anti-Christian piece of liberal scum," she read aloud. "I am getting ready for the war so I hope you have a good hiding place, you sick, disgusting, miserable, piece of degenerate lesbian scum."

The Bowman-Cryers say they never wanted the money, which remains locked in a government account. They say they never wanted a war.

For three and a half years, they have hidden, believing in time their names would disappear from the headlines. They didn't answer the phone. They declined hundreds of interviews, quit their jobs and stopped leaving the house.

Their silence has not protected them. As the Bowman-Cryers retreated, the fury over their case grew louder.

The bakers, Aaron and Melissa Klein, appealed their fines and hired former President George H.W. Bush's White House lawyer. They toured the country with presidential candidate Ted Cruz as the face of a new fight for business owners' religious freedom.

The legalization of same-sex marriage isn't the end of the story, the Kleins told crowds from Iowa to Washington, D.C. The government, they said, wants to force Christian business owners to help gay people marry. The solution, the Kleins warned receptive lawmakers, would be legislation protecting religious liberty. Arkansas, North Carolina and Mississippi have approved bills since then, curtailing the civil rights gay people fought to win.

The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case

You know, some people have real problems. Rolling stones had a song called "you can't always git what you want". Why is this even THREAD? Some maturity is in order here. Gays remind me of spoiled children rolling around on the floor having tantrums if they don't get their way. And that has just alienated me from this already pathetic agenda gays have.

 

[boedicca]

What if you have an act and if you do it, it's a sin, if you don't do it, it's a sin? Then what?

That is between the individual and God.

So you're basically saying that gay people need to be considerate towards religious people, but religious people can act however they like? So how is a gay person supposed to know what will and won't offend people? Why do they have to walk around as if egg shells are all over the floor to accommodate people who will use their religion as an excuse for anything?

To me its not about an "excuse for anything", its about being rational about all this. For point of sale items, especially necessities, I can see requiring a business to sell an item. Same thing for timely matters, such as renting a motel room. But for contracted, non-necessary, easily obtainable elsewhere goods or services, a person's religious beliefs should be considered.

When the public accommodation laws were put in place, they originally covered things such as restaurants and hotels, i.e. more immediate needs that weren't easily taken care of on the spot. A wedding being planned in advance doesn't meet this criteria.

The state of Oregon disagrees. And they disagreed a few years ago when a woman was discriminated against by her employer based on her religion. Same law.

I gave up believing that our government entities are concerned about passing laws that actually respect our Constitutional rights long go, evul twin.