Pastor Protection Act - Florida Regulators Gone Wild.

[AVG-JOE]

Including gay American citizens.

Unfortunately.

Don't like it? Don't listen or look.

This world is far too crowded for us not to take SOME responsibility for what we consume.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Preemptive social regulations? Yeah, that sounds like a people who're living free - not!

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

Nobody in their right mind agrees a $300K + fine for not baking a damn cake was just. It was over kill and did the "agenda" no favors

I agree. Do you think that the owners of the bakery could have come up with a less public way of discriminating against the customers they didn't want?

They were the ones who called the press. They could have just quietly turned those customers away - it happens every day in the private sector.

And, like someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody is expecting any given Rabbi to have to perform a Catholic, Protestant or Muslim wedding just because he has a license to do so from the state.

The bullshit in the FL legislature is fear-mongering, pandering and an unnecessary waste of my tax dollars.

I think you're ill informed on what took place regarding who contacted who and who fired the opening salvos in the cake fiasco. This is from a pro gay site backing the lesbians, it sure looks like it was the lesbians their families who drew first blood.

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

 

[AVG-JOE]

Over reaction is a $300K + fine for refusing to bake a cake. You know it and I know it

Indeed it is. Does this bill change the public accommodation laws concerning gays in Florida?

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

Unfortunate truth.

 

[Agit8r]

As long as these states maintain the option of getting a civil marriage before a judge, there could never be reason for compulsion.

 

[Coyote]

I had no idea Pastors were in danger.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

Nobody in their right mind agrees a $300K + fine for not baking a damn cake was just. It was over kill and did the "agenda" no favors

I agree. Do you think that the owners of the bakery could have come up with a less public way of discriminating against the customers they didn't want?

They were the ones who called the press. They could have just quietly turned those customers away - it happens every day in the private sector.

And, like someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody is expecting any given Rabbi to have to perform a Catholic, Protestant or Muslim wedding just because he has a license to do so from the state.

The bullshit in the FL legislature is fear-mongering, pandering and an unnecessary waste of my tax dollars.

I think you're ill informed on what took place regarding who contacted who and who fired the opening salvos in the cake fiasco. This is from a pro gay site backing the lesbians, it sure looks like it was the lesbians their families who drew first blood.

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

From the article you linked:

Last week, Oregon ordered the owners of the infamous "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" bakery to pay damages to a lesbian couple they had discriminated against, and subsequently harassed — and conservative media, of course, got it all horribly wrong.


and...

In January 2013, when Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer planned to marry, they selected a bakery they had done business with before: Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The couple had no idea what horrible anti-gay discrimination and acrimony the bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had in store for them — simply because they are gay.

Reads to me like I nailed it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Churches are not, never have been, and, nor should be subject to public accommodation laws. If they did, a Catholic could demand a wedding service in a Synagogue and they would have to comply. I support a church's right to refuse to marry any couple as they see fit it.

You realize if the gays would cease with their quest to be viewed as "normal" this wouldn't be happening. It's sad laws like this are even considered but it's in response to gay's pushing it

I don't have the numbers right in front of me but I would that numbers of gays pushing for churches to be forced to marry them is terrible small. Besides, churches already are willing to marry gays all throughout Florida.

If even one is pushing it then that is why the law is proposed. Churches are under no obligation to marry homosexuals None

Like Catholic Churches have been pushed to marry previously divorced people.

Not by the government they haven't...

Exactly!

And there is no legislation that will improve that.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

Nobody in their right mind agrees a $300K + fine for not baking a damn cake was just. It was over kill and did the "agenda" no favors

I agree. Do you think that the owners of the bakery could have come up with a less public way of discriminating against the customers they didn't want?

They were the ones who called the press. They could have just quietly turned those customers away - it happens every day in the private sector.

And, like someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody is expecting any given Rabbi to have to perform a Catholic, Protestant or Muslim wedding just because he has a license to do so from the state.

The bullshit in the FL legislature is fear-mongering, pandering and an unnecessary waste of my tax dollars.

I think you're ill informed on what took place regarding who contacted who and who fired the opening salvos in the cake fiasco. This is from a pro gay site backing the lesbians, it sure looks like it was the lesbians their families who drew first blood.

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

From the article you linked:

Last week, Oregon ordered the owners of the infamous "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" bakery to pay damages to a lesbian couple they had discriminated against, and subsequently harassed — and conservative media, of course, got it all horribly wrong.

and...

In January 2013, when Laurel Bowman and Rachel Cryer planned to marry, they selected a bakery they had done business with before: Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The couple had no idea what horrible anti-gay discrimination and acrimony the bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had in store for them — simply because they are gay.

Reads to me like I nailed it.

Nailed what? It's no secret the bakers refused, the article also states the gay couple and their family were the ones that started the public feud. They should have just walked, I realize their feelings were hurt but ending up with a $300K + judgement is over kill. The hilarious thing is the bakers won't pay a dime, the fine was all donated and then some. The entire thing was blown out of proportion and the result is laws like this one being proposed. So who really won?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Over reaction is a $300K + fine for refusing to bake a cake. You know it and I know it

Indeed it is. Does this bill change the public accommodation laws concerning gays in Florida?

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

The point I try to make in the O/P is what a colossal wast of the tax-payers time and money this is.

The SC has spoken... it's time to move on.

 

[bodecea]

Consider it more preemption of freedom of religion. Again, the gays started this nonsense and yes it is nonsense, if someone doesn't want to bake a cake or marry someone that should be their choice. That's called "living free"

I see no reason to "make" a pastor officiate a gay wedding and I see no reason to "make" a bakery sell a cake to a gay couple.

Now, if that bakery wants to take a request for product from a potential customer and turn the denial of it in to a media circus in order to show how righteous the owners of the bakery are, fuck 'em

`​

Or the flip side, a lesbian couple intentionally target a baker and then create a media circus? Most people might get upset but that was over the top and then the lesbians were screaming foul when it blew up. They should have walked

Case by case. Everybody has the same chance in any situation to do what they think is right and then we get to judge all parties in message board conversations.

Nobody in their right mind agrees a $300K + fine for not baking a damn cake was just. It was over kill and did the "agenda" no favors

I agree. Do you think that the owners of the bakery could have come up with a less public way of discriminating against the customers they didn't want?

They were the ones who called the press. They could have just quietly turned those customers away - it happens every day in the private sector.

And, like someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody is expecting any given Rabbi to have to perform a Catholic, Protestant or Muslim wedding just because he has a license to do so from the state.

The bullshit in the FL legislature is fear-mongering, pandering and an unnecessary waste of my tax dollars.

I think you're ill informed on what took place regarding who contacted who and who fired the opening salvos in the cake fiasco. This is from a pro gay site backing the lesbians, it sure looks like it was the lesbians their families who drew first blood.

Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

Nope.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Over reaction is a $300K + fine for refusing to bake a cake. You know it and I know it

Indeed it is. Does this bill change the public accommodation laws concerning gays in Florida?

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

The point I try to make in the O/P is what a colossal wast of the tax-payers time and money this is.

The SC has spoken... it's time to move on.

No, the SC made a judgement and in the process opened up other arenas.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Over reaction is a $300K + fine for refusing to bake a cake. You know it and I know it

Indeed it is. Does this bill change the public accommodation laws concerning gays in Florida?

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

Florida has every right to pass redundant laws if they so wish.

And I, as a Florida taxpayer, have every right to bitch about what a waste of The Peoples resources this particular discussion in the legislature is.

 

[Coyote]

Over reaction is a $300K + fine for refusing to bake a cake. You know it and I know it

Indeed it is. Does this bill change the public accommodation laws concerning gays in Florida?

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Over reaction is a $300K + fine for refusing to bake a cake. You know it and I know it

Indeed it is. Does this bill change the public accommodation laws concerning gays in Florida?

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

 

[Coyote]

Indeed it is. Does this bill change the public accommodation laws concerning gays in Florida?

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This bill is most likely in response to cake over kill. If you can't see that I can't help you.

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

 

[AVG-JOE]

At some point they'll start putting Christians in "re-education camps."

Not too far in the future. Child welfare is already aggressively engaged in removing children from religious homes.

"Aggressively"?

Got link?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

just confront them with paying taxes and watch their morals fall.......my point...churches should be taxed on income and real estate

So, you don't believe in the First Amendment?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A solution in search of a problem. Not a single church in Florida was ever been forced to marry any couple against their wishes. Not one.

Yet.

 

[Coyote]

Well it is an illogical response considering gays are not covered under Florida's public accommodation laws in the first place. Hells bells, the author of the bill admitted that churches are already protected from marrying couples to which they object. I expect to see more of this pandering and grandstanding from politicians with the campaign season in full swing.

An ounce of prevention.....comes to mind. Gays should have no problem with this bill if they never planned to force the issue. Right?

But why do we need it?

It looks to me like a "solution" in search of a problem.

We don't need it...yet. It's one law but if anyone hasn't noticed there are "freedom of religion" laws presently being considered in many states. Why do you think that is? Hint: Think cakes

Actually, I think the reason is not "cakes", but an open door to allow legal discrimmination. It's not just gays that could be affected. We should have moved far beyond that by now. This isn't murder. It isn't rape. There are so many worse things than gay marriage...greed, gluttony, cruelty....

I don't think someone standing up for their religious and beliefs is legal discrimination, I think anyone forced to go against their religious beliefs is unconstitutional

That depends. No church or pastor can be forced to go against their religion. But a person who provides a public service has to treat customers equally. Otherwise, we're right back to the equivalent of segregation where customers have to guess what business' might serve them and which might boot them. Not good imo. I may not agree with something, but if I have a business - I will be a professional about it.