Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[Pop23]

Realist

If you own a business and are informed that blatant discrimination bears a $150k fine and you think your personal hatreds are more important....then you made a choice to pay the fine

In this situation you shouldn't have to make the choice to begin with.

A choice of "We don't serve n*ggers here"?

I thought we settled that 50 years ago

Blacks don't make the choice to be black.

Bruce Jenner proves that gays can.

Seems Bruce was transgender his whole life. Two of his ex-wives have said he admitted it to them. The "gays choose to be gay" myth does not justify discrimination

the fool thinks all transgender people are gay?

Lol, Bruce bedded many many women AS A MALE, a heterosexual act! Now he/she is spending tens of thousands ( that's tens of thousands ) of dollars to become GAY!

That sure as shit sounds like CHOICE to me.

 

[Pop23]

Your side is advocating government persecution of people for their beliefs over something as trivial as a wedding cake. All the enabling is on your side this time.

Its not about fairness to you, its about punishing those who disagree with you, and like a coward, using government to do it instead of doing it yourself.

Progressives are always tough guys/girls when authority is behind them.

So, let me get this straight. "Fairness" equals "Discrimination". And 'Beliefs" equals "justification".

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

So the Jewish baker should be fined for not baking a Hitler cake.

Got it.

 

[Pop23]

Realist

If you own a business and are informed that blatant discrimination bears a $150k fine and you think your personal hatreds are more important....then you made a choice to pay the fine

In this situation you shouldn't have to make the choice to begin with.

A choice of "We don't serve n*ggers here"?

I thought we settled that 50 years ago

Blacks don't make the choice to be black.

Bruce Jenner proves that gays can.

Seems Bruce was transgender his whole life. Two of his ex-wives have said he admitted it to them. The "gays choose to be gay" myth does not justify discrimination

the fool thinks all transgender people are gay?

This one is changing sex to become a lesbian.

You just can't make this shit up.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, let me get this straight. "Fairness" equals "Discrimination". And 'Beliefs" equals "justification".

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

So the Jewish baker should be fined for not baking a Hitler cake.

Got it.

A smart Jewish baker would make the cake and charge 5 times as much for it and laugh all the way home.

Martials arts teaches us to allow our opponent to crush himself UNDER HIS OWN WEIGHT.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, let me get this straight. "Fairness" equals "Discrimination". And 'Beliefs" equals "justification".

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

So the Jewish baker should be fined for not baking a Hitler cake.

Got it.

Red Herring Alert!

We're talking about wedding cakes. What do you imagine a wedding cake for a same sex wedding looks like? Point of fact, it is identical to a heterosexual wedding cake.

You are trotting out the lamest of examples. A "Hitler" cake is purely political and therefore speech. A wedding cake bears no political message at all.

 

[danielpalos]

dudes and Esquires,

There is already a solution in forms of Commerce (well regulated). There is already a distinction available for Tax purposes via not-for-profit status.

Why so many shell games with Statism, Persons on the Right; and then, complaining that the least wealthy are enjoying steak and lobster in the largest Economy on Earth.

A simple and clear cut solution is already available as a legal remedy. Any for-profit establishment can and should be sued for being lousy Capitalists and for providing lousy customer service in the name of the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ for His fellow men.

Since those of the opposing view have nothing but fallacy and amorality for their Cause; this concept should be advanced at every opportunity.

 

[martybegan]

Your side is advocating government persecution of people for their beliefs over something as trivial as a wedding cake. All the enabling is on your side this time.

Its not about fairness to you, its about punishing those who disagree with you, and like a coward, using government to do it instead of doing it yourself.

Progressives are always tough guys/girls when authority is behind them.

So, let me get this straight. "Fairness" equals "Discrimination". And 'Beliefs" equals "justification".

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

 

[danielpalos]

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

So the Jewish baker should be fined for not baking a Hitler cake.

Got it.

A smart Jewish baker would make the cake and charge 5 times as much for it and laugh all the way home.

Martials arts teaches us to allow our opponent to crush himself UNDER HIS OWN WEIGHT.

A Good Capitalist with Excellent Customer Service; what a concept.

 

[Pop23]

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

So the Jewish baker should be fined for not baking a Hitler cake.

Got it.

A smart Jewish baker would make the cake and charge 5 times as much for it and laugh all the way home.

Martials arts teaches us to allow our opponent to crush himself UNDER HIS OWN WEIGHT.

Although I agree, and have been making that same argument for months
that doesn't answer the question does it?

Should the government fine the Jewish baker for refusing.

Your argument just reinforces mine, we simply do not need the government to answer every petty argument. Many times we can solve problems on our own.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, let me get this straight. "Fairness" equals "Discrimination". And 'Beliefs" equals "justification".

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

 

[Pop23]

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

So the Jewish baker should be fined for not baking a Hitler cake.

Got it.

Red Herring Alert!

We're talking about wedding cakes. What do you imagine a wedding cake for a same sex wedding looks like? Point of fact, it is identical to a heterosexual wedding cake.

You are trotting out the lamest of examples. A "Hitler" cake is purely political and therefore speech. A wedding cake bears no political message at all.

Nice dodge. A hitler cake might look the same as a wedding cake, only with hitlers name on it.

 

[Nosmo King]

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

So the Jewish baker should be fined for not baking a Hitler cake.

Got it.

Red Herring Alert!

We're talking about wedding cakes. What do you imagine a wedding cake for a same sex wedding looks like? Point of fact, it is identical to a heterosexual wedding cake.

You are trotting out the lamest of examples. A "Hitler" cake is purely political and therefore speech. A wedding cake bears no political message at all.

Nice dodge. A hitler cake might look the same as a wedding cake, only with hitlers name on it.

What?!?

 

[martybegan]

Fairness equals determining which impact is worse, two people having to go to another baker, or using government to force people to comply with something against their beliefs. In the case of Jim Crow, the side was on force, in this situation, the side is on the gay couple going somewhere else.

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

1. In a free society its not up to you to be the moral compass for someone else. The fact you have to go with argumentum ad abusrdum as well shows the general weakness of your points.

2. A wedding is a celebration, a celebration in the case of a same sex marriage is a celebration of said marriage, and by proxy, homosexual acts, done by people willingly. Find me a murder and an adulterer that gets a cake to celebrate that, and informs the baker of this, and then goes ahead and bakes the cake anyway, and you may have a point.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unless the baker advertises Hitler cakes, he/she doesn't have to bake a Hitler cake. The baker wouldn't bake a Hitler cake for anyone. But if the baker agrees to bake a Hitler cake for me, she/he can't refuse to bake one for you.

So what if the baker advertises heterosexual wedding cakes?

Why would a baker care? Do they sell other cakes to gays? Maybe gays use other cakes during sexual acts.

You didn't answer the question, weasel.

Bakers can market cakes as gay and straight cakes if they want to market them that way -- how would that break any law? , but they cannot refuse to sell a straight labelled cake to a gay couple.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

1. In a free society its not up to you to be the moral compass for someone else. The fact you have to go with argumentum ad abusrdum as well shows the general weakness of your points.

2. A wedding is a celebration, a celebration in the case of a same sex marriage is a celebration of said marriage, and by proxy, homosexual acts, done by people willingly. Find me a murder and an adulterer that gets a cake to celebrate that, and informs the baker of this, and then goes ahead and bakes the cake anyway, and you may have a point.

marty the house clown

talk about absurd arguments...

 

[Nosmo King]

So, "fairness" is making Gay customers settle for less? Fairness is a customer not being discriminated against simply because of who they are. Fairness is equal access to vendors who provide the services for every other customer. Fairness does not mean because you are Gay or Black or Asian or Latino you the customer must seek out alternatives.

The impact on Gay customers is the perpetuation of petty repression by those who are more filled with hate and fear than true Christian love.

As Gays are not committing any crime, presumably they are wearing shirts and shoes, pose not physical threat to the business or its employees and yet you think it's 'fair' for them to be denied simply because they are Gay.

Does that mean petty repression is fair?

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

1. In a free society its not up to you to be the moral compass for someone else. The fact you have to go with argumentum ad abusrdum as well shows the general weakness of your points.

2. A wedding is a celebration, a celebration in the case of a same sex marriage is a celebration of said marriage, and by proxy, homosexual acts, done by people willingly. Find me a murder and an adulterer that gets a cake to celebrate that, and informs the baker of this, and then goes ahead and bakes the cake anyway, and you may have a point.

So, in a free society it's up to wedding vendors to be the moral compass?

And a wedding cake is flour, sugar, butter and eggs. Not a holy sacrament, not a sacred ritual or rite. And wedding cakes are the stock in trade of bakeries. Their services are enjoyed by other sinners, yet homosexuals seem to occupy a special place in the dark hearts of the bigots, the moral compasses of the community. Able to arbitrate good and evil, sinners and saints according to their own peculiar dictates. Every other customer is fine so long as the check clears. But because of an obscure Biblical passage, the moral compass of the community, the wedding vendor, has a special say.

 

[martybegan]

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

1. In a free society its not up to you to be the moral compass for someone else. The fact you have to go with argumentum ad abusrdum as well shows the general weakness of your points.

2. A wedding is a celebration, a celebration in the case of a same sex marriage is a celebration of said marriage, and by proxy, homosexual acts, done by people willingly. Find me a murder and an adulterer that gets a cake to celebrate that, and informs the baker of this, and then goes ahead and bakes the cake anyway, and you may have a point.

marty the house clown

talk about absurd arguments...

Sorry, Dainty, I guess you got too used to debating those who go with the "gays are icky" logic, and can't handle someone who is opposed to all this on procedural grounds.

 

[martybegan]

So only the few bakers that refuse to serve gays are able to make the best cakes? How do you know they are settling for less? By your opinion of religious people, I surprised to learn you think they even have the skills to make good cakes.

The impact on gay customers is less than the impact of forcing people to act against their will in this case, in a non-essential service. The use of government to force these people to comply is far worse than having to spend a few more minutes finding another baker, and any hurt feewings. Considering you don't seem to give a rats ass about the bakers feelings, it only comes down to who you like better, and that isn't how government is supposed to work.

Gays have to face the fact, that until the major religions are gone from the face of the earth, their lifestyle is seen as sinful, they will never gain the acceptance of these people, and using government to either force acceptance or social banishment is counter productive, petty, and just plain wrong.

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

1. In a free society its not up to you to be the moral compass for someone else. The fact you have to go with argumentum ad abusrdum as well shows the general weakness of your points.

2. A wedding is a celebration, a celebration in the case of a same sex marriage is a celebration of said marriage, and by proxy, homosexual acts, done by people willingly. Find me a murder and an adulterer that gets a cake to celebrate that, and informs the baker of this, and then goes ahead and bakes the cake anyway, and you may have a point.

So, in a free society it's up to wedding vendors to be the moral compass?

And a wedding cake is flour, sugar, butter and eggs. Not a holy sacrament, not a sacred ritual or rite. And wedding cakes are the stock in trade of bakeries. Their services are enjoyed by other sinners, yet homosexuals seem to occupy a special place in the dark hearts of the bigots, the moral compasses of the community. Able to arbitrate good and evil, sinners and saints according to their own peculiar dictates. Every other customer is fine so long as the check clears. But because of an obscure Biblical passage, the moral compass of the community, the wedding vendor, has a special say.

Its part of the celebration, and as such is an expression of love between two people, a love a large part of the population finds sinful.

Again, find me a murderer or an adulterer who goes to get a cake to celebrate publicly their murder or celebration, and a baker either refused or didn't refuse, and you would have a baseline for your point.

 

[Nosmo King]

The bakers who refuse service to Gays may be the only baker in town. They may be the best baker in town. And for you to comment on what you think are my thoughts about Christians is uncalled for. I have a very high opinion of Christians as I am one myself. I do, however, have a very low opinion of ignorant homophobes adopting a patina of Christianity to shield them from legal action after their bigotry harms innocent customers.

Why did you intentionally misspell 'feelings' when referring to homosexuals yet correctly spell it when referring to bigots?

Now, surely there will be those clad in ecclesiastical robes preaching about the supposed sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all well and good in a church. But that vitriol has no place in public commerce. Suppose that same "preacher": told his congregation that Mexicans are inferior human specimens. Should those acolytes of hatred then extend that twisted philosophy to their businesses? Is that considered fair?

We were admonished bty the Lord to 'judge not lest ye be judged' and yet, these alleged Christians are using an obscure passage in a letter from Paul to a congregation in Rome to continue their petty repressions.

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

1. In a free society its not up to you to be the moral compass for someone else. The fact you have to go with argumentum ad abusrdum as well shows the general weakness of your points.

2. A wedding is a celebration, a celebration in the case of a same sex marriage is a celebration of said marriage, and by proxy, homosexual acts, done by people willingly. Find me a murder and an adulterer that gets a cake to celebrate that, and informs the baker of this, and then goes ahead and bakes the cake anyway, and you may have a point.

So, in a free society it's up to wedding vendors to be the moral compass?

And a wedding cake is flour, sugar, butter and eggs. Not a holy sacrament, not a sacred ritual or rite. And wedding cakes are the stock in trade of bakeries. Their services are enjoyed by other sinners, yet homosexuals seem to occupy a special place in the dark hearts of the bigots, the moral compasses of the community. Able to arbitrate good and evil, sinners and saints according to their own peculiar dictates. Every other customer is fine so long as the check clears. But because of an obscure Biblical passage, the moral compass of the community, the wedding vendor, has a special say.

Its part of the celebration, and as such is an expression of love between two people, a love a large part of the population finds sinful.

Again, find me a murderer or an adulterer who goes to get a cake to celebrate publicly their murder or celebration, and a baker either refused or didn't refuse, and you would have a baseline for your point.

Ah! The Moral Compasses. The wedding vendors who arbi8trate good and evil, sin and saintliness.

Was it proper and fitting for these shimmering examples of puritanical judgment to provide services for Brittany Spears 36 hour marriage? How about a mafia princess's wedding? The money may be bloodstained, but it's still green!

What about the store that sold the paper wedding bells and streamers and the little soap bubble dispensers the wedding party regales the happy couple with? Aren't those 'part of the celebration too? What's the problem? Those vendors did not kbnow that their goods were 'part of the celebration' of a same sex wedding. the baker was aware and used his holier than thou trump card to commit yet even more pettiness and repression in the name of the Lord.

 

[martybegan]

Lot of qualifiers there, and if a town has only one baker, and that baker isn't a fan of gays, do you really think the town as a whole is a fan of gays?

I misspell it because I don't buy the bullshit in most of these suits when it comes to how damaged these people felt. Instead if a quantifiable economic damage, they have to come up with how pained they are by being "oppressed" by finding another baker. Sorry, no sympathy here. Either be proud of who you are without the need for outside approval or acceptance, or sod off.

The bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful, do you disagree with that? I don't see any bible condemnation over being Mexican.

So, it's okay for small town Gays to be repressed?

And as to bullshit, consider this: if those bakers were in fear of the status of their immortal soul by serving Gays and therefore associating with sinners, why don't those same paranoid bakers thoroughly morally vet each and every customer? They may be baking a cake for an adulterer or a thief or someone who does not honor their parents or someone who fails to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy or worship some god not seen as the One God or take His name in vain. These sins and more are enumerated in the Ten Commandments, unlike homosexuality.

If the souls of these bigoted wedding vendors is in such great peril, should they then take the offensive homosexual to a place outside the walls of town and stone them to death as commanded in the Bible? Should the town high school have a football program? They are touching the skin of a dead pig, thus making them unclean. Should Notre Dame have a football program?

There are plenty of sins and plenty of sinners. Why is it still okay to condemn and repress homosexuals while excusing all the others?

1. In a free society its not up to you to be the moral compass for someone else. The fact you have to go with argumentum ad abusrdum as well shows the general weakness of your points.

2. A wedding is a celebration, a celebration in the case of a same sex marriage is a celebration of said marriage, and by proxy, homosexual acts, done by people willingly. Find me a murder and an adulterer that gets a cake to celebrate that, and informs the baker of this, and then goes ahead and bakes the cake anyway, and you may have a point.

So, in a free society it's up to wedding vendors to be the moral compass?

And a wedding cake is flour, sugar, butter and eggs. Not a holy sacrament, not a sacred ritual or rite. And wedding cakes are the stock in trade of bakeries. Their services are enjoyed by other sinners, yet homosexuals seem to occupy a special place in the dark hearts of the bigots, the moral compasses of the community. Able to arbitrate good and evil, sinners and saints according to their own peculiar dictates. Every other customer is fine so long as the check clears. But because of an obscure Biblical passage, the moral compass of the community, the wedding vendor, has a special say.

Its part of the celebration, and as such is an expression of love between two people, a love a large part of the population finds sinful.

Again, find me a murderer or an adulterer who goes to get a cake to celebrate publicly their murder or celebration, and a baker either refused or didn't refuse, and you would have a baseline for your point.

Ah! The Moral Compasses. The wedding vendors who arbi8trate good and evil, sin and saintliness.

Was it proper and fitting for these shimmering examples of puritanical judgment to provide services for Brittany Spears 36 hour marriage? How about a mafia princess's wedding? The money may be bloodstained, but it's still green!

What about the store that sold the paper wedding bells and streamers and the little soap bubble dispensers the wedding party regales the happy couple with? Aren't those 'part of the celebration too? What's the problem? Those vendors did not kbnow that their goods were 'part of the celebration' of a same sex wedding. the baker was aware and used his holier than thou trump card to commit yet even more pettiness and repression in the name of the Lord.

Are those vendors that have refused to serve same sex weddings? You have to deal with this on a case by case basis if you want to make valid comparison.

And you get to the crux of the matter, awareness, that coupled with the level on involvement are critical.

All of this leads back to the real issue, you don't like these people's opinions and choices, and thus they must be crushed by government, That's your worldview, and it is shared by people you may not be fans of.