Pastor who asked gay bakery for cake threatened with charges

[Syriusly]

How hypocritical. If anyone should be charged, it shouldn't be the customer. It wasn't the customer who was charged when a straight bakery person refused to make a homosexual wedding cake. If the homosexuals don't want us straight people in the game, they shouldn't have shown us how to play it in the first place then!!!

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

The Pastor apparently broke Florida law when he recorded the telephone conversation without permission- I don't remember 'homosexuals' teaching 'you straight people' (i.e. homophobic bigots) teaching you how to do that.

Well to me when there is nothing to hide nobody minds. If the person had just baked the cake like they were asked to, there wouldn't have been a reason to expose their refusing to.

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

If you were a baker and asked to make a cake with the words God is actually gay on it, would you do it? How about one that said Satan is better than God?

I would go as far as to making the cake, yes, but if such a message had to be on it, I would get someone else to put it on the cake.

How hypocritical. If anyone should be charged, it shouldn't be the customer. It wasn't the customer who was charged when a straight bakery person refused to make a homosexual wedding cake. If the homosexuals don't want us straight people in the game, they shouldn't have shown us how to play it in the first place then!!!

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

The Pastor apparently broke Florida law when he recorded the telephone conversation without permission- I don't remember 'homosexuals' teaching 'you straight people' (i.e. homophobic bigots) teaching you how to do that.

Well to me when there is nothing to hide nobody minds. If the person had just baked the cake like they were asked to, there wouldn't have been a reason to expose their refusing to.

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

P.S. If homosexuals demand that their cakes be made by who ever, then they have to make whatever anyone else wants them to make too. They can not have it both ways.

Sorry- but you are at this point being willfully ignorant.

IF a business refuses to provide a service because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian- in Florida- that business is breaking the law.
If a business refuses to provide a service because the customer is being a jerk- that business is not breaking the law.

The pastor who called and wanted the cake did not ask for a 'Christian cake' and was not refused his cake because of his religion.
However if a baker wanted to refuse to sell a cake to a homosexual in Florida- that would be perfectly legal.

Because Florida provides no protection for discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

How hypocritical. If anyone should be charged, it shouldn't be the customer. It wasn't the customer who was charged when a straight bakery person refused to make a homosexual wedding cake. If the homosexuals don't want us straight people in the game, they shouldn't have shown us how to play it in the first place then!!!

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

The Pastor apparently broke Florida law when he recorded the telephone conversation without permission- I don't remember 'homosexuals' teaching 'you straight people' (i.e. homophobic bigots) teaching you how to do that.

Well to me when there is nothing to hide nobody minds. If the person had just baked the cake like they were asked to, there wouldn't have been a reason to expose their refusing to.

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

So you are okay with the pastor breaking Florida state law?

I'm ok with the pastor breaking an unjust law.

That's pretty much how I feel too.

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Pastor apparently broke Florida law when he recorded the telephone conversation without permission- I don't remember 'homosexuals' teaching 'you straight people' (i.e. homophobic bigots) teaching you how to do that.

Well to me when there is nothing to hide nobody minds. If the person had just baked the cake like they were asked to, there wouldn't have been a reason to expose their refusing to.

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

So you are okay with the pastor breaking Florida state law?

I'm ok with the pastor breaking an unjust law.

That's pretty much how I feel too.

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well to me when there is nothing to hide nobody minds. If the person had just baked the cake like they were asked to, there wouldn't have been a reason to expose their refusing to.

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

So you are okay with the pastor breaking Florida state law?

I'm ok with the pastor breaking an unjust law.

That's pretty much how I feel too.

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

I think that it would make me very uncomfortable if I ever heard that disclaimer when I called one of my friends...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So you are okay with the pastor breaking Florida state law?

I'm ok with the pastor breaking an unjust law.

That's pretty much how I feel too.

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

I think that it would make me very uncomfortable if I ever heard that disclaimer when I called one of my friends...

Which is why the law is stupid. One time a friend called me who was having suicidal thoughts. I helped him as best I could, but I also recorded the call. It's an interesting point of hypocrisy that we have privacy protected when we talk on the phone but have no right to privacy when the NSA wants to spy on us.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm ok with the pastor breaking an unjust law.

That's pretty much how I feel too.

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

I think that it would make me very uncomfortable if I ever heard that disclaimer when I called one of my friends...

Which is why the law is stupid. One time a friend called me who was having suicidal thoughts. I helped him as best I could, but I also recorded the call. It's an interesting point of hypocrisy that we have privacy protected when we talk on the phone but have no right to privacy when the NSA wants to spy on us.

From what I can see- it is perfectly legal in Idaho to record a call without consent of the other party. Not so in Florida. I don't think the law is stupid- nothing wrong with full disclosure.

 

[Syriusly]

Well to me when there is nothing to hide nobody minds. If the person had just baked the cake like they were asked to, there wouldn't have been a reason to expose their refusing to.

God bless you and the preacher always!!!

Holly

So you are okay with the pastor breaking Florida state law?

I'm ok with the pastor breaking an unjust law.

That's pretty much how I feel too.

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

Nothing prevents you from telling that to your mom each time she calls- or anyone else.

However- the 'pastor' in this case did no such thing- he purposely recorded her without her consent- whether he knew he was breaking Florida law- or just didn't care, which is why he called a business in Florida rather than in Arizona- I don't know.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's pretty much how I feel too.

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

I think that it would make me very uncomfortable if I ever heard that disclaimer when I called one of my friends...

Which is why the law is stupid. One time a friend called me who was having suicidal thoughts. I helped him as best I could, but I also recorded the call. It's an interesting point of hypocrisy that we have privacy protected when we talk on the phone but have no right to privacy when the NSA wants to spy on us.

From what I can see- it is perfectly legal in Idaho to record a call without consent of the other party. Not so in Florida. I don't think the law is stupid- nothing wrong with full disclosure.

There is no presumed right to privacy on the phone. In fact, if you say any number of things on the phone such as "bomb" or "allah" or "assassinate the president" computers in Fort Meade flag it. When I was younger, a friend and I used to have phone conversations generously laced with such words just to fuck with the NSA. Wouldn't do that nowadays, it was an innocent age back then. I think if government and big corporations can record phone calls, we should too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So why do you feel that Florida's law requiring consent from both parties before recording a telephone conversation is unjust?

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

I think that it would make me very uncomfortable if I ever heard that disclaimer when I called one of my friends...

Which is why the law is stupid. One time a friend called me who was having suicidal thoughts. I helped him as best I could, but I also recorded the call. It's an interesting point of hypocrisy that we have privacy protected when we talk on the phone but have no right to privacy when the NSA wants to spy on us.

From what I can see- it is perfectly legal in Idaho to record a call without consent of the other party. Not so in Florida. I don't think the law is stupid- nothing wrong with full disclosure.

There is no presumed right to privacy on the phone. In fact, if you say any number of things on the phone such as "bomb" or "allah" or "assassinate the president" computers in Fort Meade flag it. When I was younger, a friend and I used to have phone conversations generously laced with such words just to fuck with the NSA. Wouldn't do that nowadays, it was an innocent age back then. I think if government and big corporations can record phone calls, we should too.

The expectation of the privacy of a phone call is long established. Only recently, and only when one party was outside the US, did that change.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I think that private people should do what major corporations do, have a recording that says "This call may be monitored or recorded" just before the phone connection is made. Then like the corps, we can "presume" that the person talking to us consents to being recorded.

I think that it would make me very uncomfortable if I ever heard that disclaimer when I called one of my friends...

Which is why the law is stupid. One time a friend called me who was having suicidal thoughts. I helped him as best I could, but I also recorded the call. It's an interesting point of hypocrisy that we have privacy protected when we talk on the phone but have no right to privacy when the NSA wants to spy on us.

From what I can see- it is perfectly legal in Idaho to record a call without consent of the other party. Not so in Florida. I don't think the law is stupid- nothing wrong with full disclosure.

There is no presumed right to privacy on the phone. In fact, if you say any number of things on the phone such as "bomb" or "allah" or "assassinate the president" computers in Fort Meade flag it. When I was younger, a friend and I used to have phone conversations generously laced with such words just to fuck with the NSA. Wouldn't do that nowadays, it was an innocent age back then. I think if government and big corporations can record phone calls, we should too.

The expectation of the privacy of a phone call is long established. Only recently, and only when one party was outside the US, did that change.

You think they aren't spying on domestic calls?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think that it would make me very uncomfortable if I ever heard that disclaimer when I called one of my friends...

Which is why the law is stupid. One time a friend called me who was having suicidal thoughts. I helped him as best I could, but I also recorded the call. It's an interesting point of hypocrisy that we have privacy protected when we talk on the phone but have no right to privacy when the NSA wants to spy on us.

From what I can see- it is perfectly legal in Idaho to record a call without consent of the other party. Not so in Florida. I don't think the law is stupid- nothing wrong with full disclosure.

There is no presumed right to privacy on the phone. In fact, if you say any number of things on the phone such as "bomb" or "allah" or "assassinate the president" computers in Fort Meade flag it. When I was younger, a friend and I used to have phone conversations generously laced with such words just to fuck with the NSA. Wouldn't do that nowadays, it was an innocent age back then. I think if government and big corporations can record phone calls, we should too.

The expectation of the privacy of a phone call is long established. Only recently, and only when one party was outside the US, did that change.

You think they aren't spying on domestic calls?

Not without a warrant they aren't, usually.

And I see that good old Sweet Cakes by Melissa will be cutting two checks, one for 75K and one for 60K. Next time, bake the stupid cake.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Which is why the law is stupid. One time a friend called me who was having suicidal thoughts. I helped him as best I could, but I also recorded the call. It's an interesting point of hypocrisy that we have privacy protected when we talk on the phone but have no right to privacy when the NSA wants to spy on us.

From what I can see- it is perfectly legal in Idaho to record a call without consent of the other party. Not so in Florida. I don't think the law is stupid- nothing wrong with full disclosure.

There is no presumed right to privacy on the phone. In fact, if you say any number of things on the phone such as "bomb" or "allah" or "assassinate the president" computers in Fort Meade flag it. When I was younger, a friend and I used to have phone conversations generously laced with such words just to fuck with the NSA. Wouldn't do that nowadays, it was an innocent age back then. I think if government and big corporations can record phone calls, we should too.

The expectation of the privacy of a phone call is long established. Only recently, and only when one party was outside the US, did that change.

You think they aren't spying on domestic calls?

Not without a warrant they aren't, usually.

And I see that good old Sweet Cakes by Melissa will be cutting two checks, one for 75K and one for 60K. Next time, bake the stupid cake.

That's the beauty of the "patriot" act. They don't need a warrant.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry- I thought I put the link in

Threats made against bakery in Longwood Seminole County

CASSELBERRY --

Police are stepping up patrols around a family owned bakery in Longwood after threats were made to the owner because she refused to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Sharon Haller, the owner of Cut the Cake, said the threats and harassing calls starting coming after an anonymous caller criticized her decision not to put the message on a cake.

"I'm just afraid because of the type of calls that we were getting that someone is going to attack me in my home," Haller said.

Sharon Haller told News 13 on Friday that it all started after Feuerstein, a former TV evangelist, posted a video on social media targeting the Seminole County-based business. The recording includes Haller's voice even though she said she didn't consent to being recorded.

Shortly after the video was posted, Haller said, she started to receive hundreds of hate calls.

"He gave credit card information and he said he wants written on the cake, 'I hate gays,'" Haller said.

She received threats, too.

"People (are) telling us that we need to kill ourselves and all kinds of stuff, and we're just afraid for our business and our safety."

Casselberry Police Department officials confirmed they are looking into the report, but they said it's not a criminal case at this time.

Police have offered Haller and bakery employees escorts if they feel threatened.

Can the police refuse to serve gay people?

Nope, government always has to perform its tasks regardless of the origination of said tasks.

What if the taxpayers that pay the police are Christians and don't want gay people served?

Doesn't matter. Once you become a government actor, you become beholden to the rules created by the constitutions, federal and at the State level. Government has to be an impartial actor, and cannot pick and choose things of this nature. For government jobs, the mantra of "don't like it? then quit" is 100% applicable, and necessary for society to function.

What if there is nothing in the federal or state or local constitution about having to serve people because of their sexual orientation? As far as I know, Florida would fit into that scenario. There is no federal law or state law that addresses sexual orientation. Unless "serving the public" actually means all of the public.

If the government is "the law", then equal protection is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The purpose of the amendment was to prevent states from persecuting the freemen after the Civil War. While I have issues with the 14th being applied in certain ways to private transactions, its standing when it comes to governmental interactions is indisputable.

 

[justoffal]

Three choices when this happens:

1 - bake a doodoo cake covered with frosting.

2 - make the best cake ever in hopes of impressing the customer

3 - start a religion that has no problem with gays, but does with gay-haters then object on religious freedom grounds in applicable states.

For anybody that knows anything about business at all number two is the only practical option. That includes Christian bakers' refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding also.

Most municipalities have contingencies written into their licensing laws that many applicants fail to see in the fine print when they apply.

When you sign that license application you are agreeing to those contingencies. One of them is that you provide the service evenly and openly to the customers you are vending to. If you don't want to do this the city does not have to Grant you the license. This is not brain surgery, it's not religion, it's not sexual orientation preference.

It's business!!

Jo

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Sounds like a couple of toddlers trying to out-mean each other. ROFL