The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[JoeB131]

BS, a gay person can buy any kind of cake he/she wants. But the baker should not be forced to put his product on display at a gay wedding if that violates his religious or personal beliefs.

Nonsense. No one was asking him to "put his product on display". They were asked to provide a service. A service they said they would provide, which is legally a public accommedation.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

One of my favorite parts of this case -- is the owner of the bakery -- who called the two women "abominations unto the Lord" (the woman went in with her mother -- and were only there for literally a few minutes at the bakery)

-- sports a tattoo on his arm.

Which is -- an abomination unto the Lord.

No it's not, dope

So Leviticus 19:28 was just a toss away?

It's ceremonial law, directed towards the Jews and never was at Gentiles. Done away with when the New Covenant did away with the Old Covenant. Same as the dietary laws, that's why eating shellfish is no longer a sin and never was for Gentiles

Convenient that jerkface Baker (and you) in this case gets to cherry-pick Leviticus, eh?

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

 

[JoeB131]

maybe, but neither of us can predict the future, who would have predicted that obozo and the hildebeast would be against gay marriage before they were for it.

You mean who would have predicted that after we had a serious and frank conversation about the subject, all the objections of bigots would be over come? seriously?

and as to the gay baker incident: common sense and respect should have prevailed, not this partisan bullshit. as I said

The anti gay marriage baker should have said. "I would prefer not to make your cake because gay marriage is against my religious and personal beliefs, but baker John down the street will do a great cake for you". and the gay couple should have said "we respect your beliefs and thanks for recommending baker John".

Or maybe we should protect people's rights. The Bakers have a remedy. If they don't want to be in a situation where they have to bake a cake for people who violate their moral values, then they can just get out of the cake baking business.

 

[paperview]

One of my favorite parts of this case -- is the owner of the bakery -- who called the two women "abominations unto the Lord" (the woman went in with her mother -- and were only there for literally a few minutes at the bakery)

-- sports a tattoo on his arm.

Which is -- an abomination unto the Lord.

No it's not, dope

So Leviticus 19:28 was just a toss away?

It's ceremonial law, directed towards the Jews and never was at Gentiles. Done away with when the New Covenant did away with the Old Covenant. Same as the dietary laws, that's why eating shellfish is no longer a sin and never was for Gentiles

Convenient that jerkface Baker (and you) in this case gets to cherry-pick Leviticus, eh?

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

yet, you are.

 

[Pop23]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

Hmmmm,

So two married couples work out at a gym together, one couple married lesbians, the other married straights. They go to the showers. One couple gets to enter their locker/showers together, the other has to go to separate.

Lesbians are attracted to females in the same way males are, but the lesbians get access greater than the straights?

This is going to be a mess folks. Enjoy it while you're ahead!

 

[Pop23]

how many small businesses having to close up shop over this shit will be ENOUGH for these people? don't even think they done. they are just GETTING STARTED

Watch what happens to gyms that discriminate against straight couples vs. gay couples!!!

The shoe will be on the other foot n

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No it's not, dope

So Leviticus 19:28 was just a toss away?

It's ceremonial law, directed towards the Jews and never was at Gentiles. Done away with when the New Covenant did away with the Old Covenant. Same as the dietary laws, that's why eating shellfish is no longer a sin and never was for Gentiles

Convenient that jerkface Baker (and you) in this case gets to cherry-pick Leviticus, eh?

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

yet, you are.

I am what? Show me where I cherry pick Leviticus. Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

 

[JoeB131]

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

Okay, how about Christian Law?

The New Testament says that women should not speak in Church, should obey their husbands in all things, should not wear braids or jewelry.

Somehow, I doubt you follow any of these rules.

The New Testament also calls on Slaves to happily serve their masters. Something we'd never consider today as valid.

But that rule on the gays, that's totally iron-clad.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

Okay, how about Christian Law?

The New Testament says that women should not speak in Church, should obey their husbands in all things, should not wear braids or jewelry.

Somehow, I doubt you follow any of these rules.

The New Testament also calls on Slaves to happily serve their masters. Something we'd never consider today as valid.

But that rule on the gays, that's totally iron-clad.

I never mentioned the New Testament. Did I? If so point out where

 

[WorldWatcher]

Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

Aaron Klien the owner of the bakeshop did, the person in question in the case. Which is the point being made.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

So Leviticus 19:28 was just a toss away?

It's ceremonial law, directed towards the Jews and never was at Gentiles. Done away with when the New Covenant did away with the Old Covenant. Same as the dietary laws, that's why eating shellfish is no longer a sin and never was for Gentiles

Convenient that jerkface Baker (and you) in this case gets to cherry-pick Leviticus, eh?

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

yet, you are.

I am what? Show me where I cherry pick Leviticus. Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

OK then. You don't agree with the baker quoting Leviticus to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Thanks!

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this.................If someone came to you and requested you make them a cake that said GOD DAMN AMERICA! Would you bake it and put those words on it as requested....................or would you tell them to go fuck themselves..................

I'd tell them to go fuck themselves...............Then they'd go I'LL SUE..........OR ELSE...........my reply would be the same...........because I wouldn't do it.............and the courts would say I MUST DO SO........your out of business.....you must pay................and you can't go public with your convictions...........

Only in America with RETARDS who think this is righteous, would this ever be allowed...........oops...........already happens in Europe.........

Moral of the story..................Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's ceremonial law, directed towards the Jews and never was at Gentiles. Done away with when the New Covenant did away with the Old Covenant. Same as the dietary laws, that's why eating shellfish is no longer a sin and never was for Gentiles

Convenient that jerkface Baker (and you) in this case gets to cherry-pick Leviticus, eh?

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

yet, you are.

I am what? Show me where I cherry pick Leviticus. Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

OK then. You don't agree with the baker quoting Leviticus to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Thanks!

The bakers didn't have to quote Leviticus. I'm setting you up to fail, you know that don't you?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

Aaron Klien the owner of the bakeshop did, the person in question in the case. Which is the point being made.


>>>>

He didn't have to quote Leviticus, it's his choice to use Biblical verse he wants to but there are others that would do nicely

 

[NYcarbineer]

Convenient that jerkface Baker (and you) in this case gets to cherry-pick Leviticus, eh?

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

yet, you are.

I am what? Show me where I cherry pick Leviticus. Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

OK then. You don't agree with the baker quoting Leviticus to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Thanks!

The bakers didn't have to quote Leviticus. I'm setting you up to fail, you know that don't you?

Well then quote any scripture you want that proves that Christians are commanded not to do business with homosexuals.

 

[paperview]

Convenient that jerkface Baker (and you) in this case gets to cherry-pick Leviticus, eh?

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

yet, you are.

I am what? Show me where I cherry pick Leviticus. Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

OK then. You don't agree with the baker quoting Leviticus to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Thanks!

The bakers didn't have to quote Leviticus. I'm setting you up to fail, you know that don't you?

lol



Poor you.

 

[bripat9643]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

I wouldnt pay them a dime. I would sue the gay couple for damages and compensation. It is they who forced a person against their religious belief.

Baking a cake isn't allowed in which religion?

Baking a cake for their wedding. Yeah, you're damned right I'd countersue that gay couple for millions.

Good luck, chump.

BTW: 1. They can appeal.
2. This wasn't lawsuit, hence, no countersuit.

Then the $135,000 was a fine which the judge arbitrarily decided upon.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't need to cherry pick Leviticus. It's Mosaic Law, I'm not Jewish

yet, you are.

I am what? Show me where I cherry pick Leviticus. Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

OK then. You don't agree with the baker quoting Leviticus to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Thanks!

The bakers didn't have to quote Leviticus. I'm setting you up to fail, you know that don't you?

lol



Poor you.

Romans 1 26-28 You took the bait

 

[bripat9643]

this kind of stuff help people reject homosexuals period. If they(homosexuals) don't start standing up for OTHERS in these witch hunts. Then they only have themselves to blame for the hate that people will have against them. It's sad but a fact of life. they can't keep pushing themselves off on the people in the country. They like Black people, they are being USED by others and should wake up to it.

You have it backwards. It's stuff like this which creates a backlash against Christian right wingers. The phrase "Christian right wingers" is really an oxymoron because Jesus was a person who stood up for the poor, the downtrodden, and the outcasts of society. He even stood up to those who were stoning an adulterer by saying "Let you who is without sin, cast the first stone".

I guess the phrase "Love one another as I have loved you" has no meaning to you. It is not very loving of these so-called Christians to refuse service to the gays.

How can relentless attacks on Christians be called a "backlash?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Advance warning: I don't quote Leviticus

Aaron Klien the owner of the bakeshop did, the person in question in the case. Which is the point being made.


>>>>

He didn't have to quote Leviticus, it's his choice to use Biblical verse he wants to but there are others that would do nicely

Then cite them.