Bakers...they won't stop if you just bake the cake...they want you to like it....

[Katzndogz]

Oh no. But the vendor will have to sign an affidavit that they regret being in, or ever having been in, a heterosexual relationship with a person of the white race.

 

[candycorn]

Basically conservatives want to regulate whom you fall in love with...

ROFL!

Now how precious is THAT? Addle-minded nonsense, being advanced as reason.

Sexual normality is established by the human physiological standard.

You need to pretend that that immutable fact doesn't exist, as a means to justify deviant behavior.

What this establishes is another fact.

And that fact is that the demand that reality doesn't exist is a presentation of mental disorder; specifically, that mental disorder is known as DELUSION.

And of course, you're the one who determines what is deviant and not...right? Sounds like a conservative ideal..."WE" (whomever that is) will decide what is acceptable and not and if you step outside of that...you're not considered normal, you'll be deprived of rights that are granted freely to every other American....

Is that pretty much it?

That's pretty much it. That's why you can't marry your golden retriever, your toaster or your neighbor's corpse. Of course that will change. Love conquers all. Even the most vile of depravities will be the new normal.

That's not really at issue. The new fight for "rights" is the approval fight. The vendor not only must provide the service, but indicate that the event meets with their personal approval and makes them personally joyful. A jeweler who makes the order as specified must still go the extra step and deny all support for traditional marriage as well.

A baker who makes the wedding cake exactly as ordered, beautiful and delicious but tells the happy couple that it's done under duress is right or wrong? You get your cake but you are perverts that will burn in hell forever. Is the baker wrong to complain about his bondage, or must he also be happy about it?

I'm ambivalent about it really. Way back when this first came up, the line I saw was this.

If you are a baker and someone orders a cake on June 1. You cannot, on June 2 say "no". Regardless of the cause.

If you are a baker and someone orders a cake on June 1. And you think that performing the service will hurt your business, you can decline. For example, you don't want to become known as the baker for the Klan or PETA or NORMAL or whomever else.

My reasoning was this: If Taylor Swift's rate for a concert is, let's say for the sake of argument, $100,000 a night, I wouldn't want to force Ms. Swift to perform at a kid's birthday party if the Mother happened to be willing to spend $100K. Such would hurt her career.

As for the discussion at hand; the baker can show no legitimate reason why they think baking a cake would hurt their business.

 

[Katzndogz]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

 

[Katzndogz]

If gays really do feel that strongly about who they give their money to (and they should, I would ) then the baker, photographer or florist, should offer a disclaimer as to their objection and a notice that all profit from a same sex transaction would be donated to Focus on the Family, or Family Research Council in the name of the customer. Have the disclaimer signed. Perform the service if they still want it. Make the donation and ask forgiveness.

The court in Elayne's photography specifically said they could use a disclaimer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Both positions of which are devoid of legal merit and consequently irrelevant.

One may not use religious beliefs or personal, subjective support of an issue as an 'excuse' or 'justification' to violate just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws.

 

[Katzndogz]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Both positions of which are devoid of legal merit and consequently irrelevant.

One may not use religious beliefs or personal, subjective support of an issue as an 'excuse' or 'justification' to violate just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws.

Then have the couple sign a disclaimer that they know the service is being performed under duress and the profits donated to a Christian charity in their name.

The New Mexico court said this was an appropriate resolution.

 

[bripat9643]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Capitalism at its finest

Put up a sign that offends your customers....lose business

Agreed.

 

[Seawytch]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

It wasn't.

 

[2aguy]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

It wasn't.

So.....it was a sign.....

 

[Seawytch]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

It wasn't.

So.....it was a sign.....

It was a sign that was put up after the couple had placed the order.

 

[2aguy]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

It wasn't.

So.....it was a sign.....

It was a sign that was put up after the couple had placed the order.

So....it didn't say we hate gays...did it? and if it did.....free speech...right? they agreed to make the ring...right? And like the baker...the baker explained they were religious and couldn't bake the cake.....and they were attacked anyway...right? So even if the gays new in advance that the jewelry store was run by a religious individual, and that they did not support gay marriage, would they have still insisted they make the ring if they had refused......probably.....but when the actually agreed to make the ring in advance, and then the gays saw the sign....then they decided not to have them make the ring....right?

So they would have forced the ring maker to make the ring if he had refused.....and when he agreed but put up the sign...then they get offended? they are morons....

 

[Katzndogz]

Yet it upsets gays no end when a customer refuses to patronize a business advertising support for same sex marriage or displaying the rainbow flag.

 

[bripat9643]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

It wasn't.

It's still not a valid justification for cancelling the contract, especially since queers insist the fact that you don't like them is not a valid justification for refusing to do business with them.

 

[bripat9643]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

It wasn't.

So.....it was a sign.....

It was a sign that was put up after the couple had placed the order.

So....it didn't say we hate gays...did it? and if it did.....free speech...right? they agreed to make the ring...right? And like the baker...the baker explained they were religious and couldn't bake the cake.....and they were attacked anyway...right? So even if the gays new in advance that the jewelry store was run by a religious individual, and that they did not support gay marriage, would they have still insisted they make the ring if they had refused......probably.....but when the actually agreed to make the ring in advance, and then the gays saw the sign....then they decided not to have them make the ring....right?

So they would have forced the ring maker to make the ring if he had refused.....and when he agreed but put up the sign...then they get offended? they are morons....

You got to understand: the queers demand that we all like them, but they are free to direct hate at whomever they like.

 

[bripat9643]

The baker objects to participating in an event they are morally opposed to or conveying a message that conveys a belief they don't have.

The jeweler is in an entirely different category since they never refused the service at all. They just had a sign voicing their support of traditional marriage. The customer was entitled to breach the contract based upon an opinion they disagreed with.

Not if the sign was in the window when the made the contract.

It wasn't.

So.....it was a sign.....

It was a sign that was put up after the couple had placed the order.

So?

 

[thereisnospoon]

<sob> <sob> and then they forced me to make a cake for HOMOS...

It is so degrading, I don't know what I will do

<sob> <sob> and then they forced me to make a cake for HOMOS...

It is so degrading, I don't know what I will do

Of course you being a flaming liberal would miss the point by several time zones.
The store owebers if they decide to pursue damages, would prevail in court so as long as there exists a contract between the couple and the owner of the store.
Case closed.....This is not political...Peel back the layers of the onion, it's a civil matter.
Shut up

 

[Pop23]

<sob> <sob> and then they forced me to make a cake for HOMOS...

It is so degrading, I don't know what I will do

One day they will come for you too rightwinger...and I'll laugh too....

Like when straight opposite couples sue for being denied the use of shower rooms together when same sex couples aren't?

Like that?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here is a story I heard on the Dan and Amy show, I can't find the story yet....a jeweler in Canada is religious and pro traditional marriage, they actually made wedding rings for a gay couple that were getting married....after the rings were made, several thousand dollars worth.....the gay couple noticed a sign in the store that mentioned supporting traditional marriage....they refused to pay for the rings

So...a traditional religous person with a jewelry store actually makes rings for a gay wedding...and that isn't enough....they have not submitted to the borg collective completely and now will be punished...

The foolishness of believing that they will stop at you just serving them is silly........

Dan Proft mentioned a speech by Lincoln....who addressed some abolitionists who believed that they should just let the south (democrats) have their way of life and let the north (repbulicans) be free...Lincoln pointed out that the south would never let them just "be" that they would end up pushing until the north was also slave owning......

And he was right...they will not just stop at you serving them...you had better be completely on board and must submit to their goals...or you will pay.....

Aww hell. This shit is getting so out of control, the mainstream of Americans is starting to ignore it.
Only the most radical of the PC protected class and their cheer leaders delve into this crap.
Hell, if a were an attorney I would specialize in suing these nut jobs, these radical lefties.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you put up a sign that offends your customers and then complain when they don't want to do business with you

Offends? Ok genius. where was the 'offense' before the couple decided that a printed sign bugged the shit out of them...
This looks like another set up to me.