Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[Quantum Windbag]

They did exercise their unalienable right to not participate in something they could not in good consicence condone. If all the rest of the world does not share their conscience in this matter, it is still their unalienable right to exercise their conscience.

And this is the exact same reason that was provided to condone discrimination based on skin color.

The major difference being that discrimination under Jim Crow was required by law. Pretty sure you cannot say the same thing about the US now, but thanks for being stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't think you know what the word condoning means.

The rest of your post is just pure irony.

Do you know what it means?

If I bake a special order cake, and write Congratulations to Kate and Mary on it, I am condoning their relationship. If they buy a generic cake from me, and write it themselves, I am not.

See the difference?

No. You are executing your customers instructions to provide a sequence of letters on the cake. Putting letters on the cake in the sequence requested is not condoning the content of the message formed by the sequence of letters, any more than printing a book of fiction is condoning the events in the story.

 

[RKMBrown]

They did exercise their unalienable right to not participate in something they could not in good consicence condone. If all the rest of the world does not share their conscience in this matter, it is still their unalienable right to exercise their conscience.

And this is the exact same reason that was provided to condone discrimination based on skin color.

It is our unalienable right to discriminate for ANY reason. It is NOT our unalienable right to deny rights to somebody else by imposing our convictions, prejudice, bigotry, or discrimination on another person. The bakers did not do that. They did not attempt to deny the gay couple a cake or a wedding. They held no malice nor did they do anythng to punish or force the gay couple to do anything. All they did was exercise their conscience in choosing not to participate in something they could not condone in good conscience. The bakers were not the bigots. Those who threatened and attempted to hurt or destroy the bakers were.

Bigotry that hurts people is evil.

Intelligent people understand that.

Bigots do not. And those who would attempt to hurt or punish the bakers for their convictions are far worse bigots who discriminate in far more destructive ways than those bakers ever would be likely to do. And it is evil.

Your world is upside down on this one. The bigots were the bakers not the gay people that responded to the bigotry of the bakers by picketing the bakers for their discrimination against gays. Your accusation that the bakers were threatened is not supported by any evidence whatsoever other than the generic accusation made by the bigot bakers. Where is the proof of your accusation of these threats? What threat? What specific threat? What was threatened who was threatened and how where they threatened? Can you even name one word that was uttered in this threat? Just one word?

 

[RKMBrown]

The farmer toils in the fields for a living, none of his works offend anyone. He knows nothing of where the end product of his work goes. He has no choice nor does he care, for none of it violates his conscience. The hens he dutifully raises, who lay the eggs which make the batter of that cake, carry on the life which God wills upon them; they serve their purpose in this world, they have no conscience of consequence, of right or wrong, of good or bad, or of sinfulness and righteousness. The couple in this bakery know what the Bible says about homosexuality, they have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of good or bad, a sense of sinfulness and righteousness.

The part of the farmer or the coop of chickens he raises is of no consequence. A non sequitur.

But the conscience of a man no longer matters. His beliefs are to be trampled underfoot with impunity, his sense of right and wrong judged summarily because he dares to have them. Who are you to judge the conscience of a man, or of any man, woman or child? Should you somehow come across the same dilemma this couple faced, expect no mercy from me, for you shewn none upon this couple or upon anyone who does likewise.



Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, for judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

James 2:12-13

The baker bakes in his kitchen. The farmer farms on his farm. But they both sell in the public market place. You forgive the farmer of selling their goods to a baker that bakes cakes for gay weddings. Then you judge the baker of sinning by selling the goods "baked" and assembled at a gay wedding. You would have been ok with this baker baking the cake that went to the gay wedding if a non-gay wedding planner did the purchase and assembled the cake for the baker? What is wrong with you that you associate baking and selling cakes to gays as performing and condoning gay sex acts?

I pay my taxes does that mean I "condone" and enable Obama? Your taxes paid for the road that leads to the location where the gays got married. Does that mean you condoned and enabled sin? How can you let your income be used to enable gay sin?

Apparently, you can't read, what a surprise.

By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

Can't read? I read quite well thank you.

>>> By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

I agree with this statement. What makes you think your statement is any different than my explanation of why baking a cake for gays does not condone the activities of gays? How is your apparent agreement of my statement of the difference between producing and using an indication that I can't read?

 

[RKMBrown]

They did exercise their unalienable right to not participate in something they could not in good consicence condone. If all the rest of the world does not share their conscience in this matter, it is still their unalienable right to exercise their conscience.

And this is the exact same reason that was provided to condone discrimination based on skin color.

The major difference being that discrimination under Jim Crow was required by law. Pretty sure you cannot say the same thing about the US now, but thanks for being stupid.

Wrong. The laws of the land most certainly do require discrimination against same sex sexual orientation when it comes to marriage. It's exactly the same as the Jim Crow laws only substitute sexual orientation for skin color.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think you know what the word condoning means.

The rest of your post is just pure irony.

Do you know what it means?

If I bake a special order cake, and write Congratulations to Kate and Mary on it, I am condoning their relationship. If they buy a generic cake from me, and write it themselves, I am not.

See the difference?

No. You are executing your customers instructions to provide a sequence of letters on the cake. Putting letters on the cake in the sequence requested is not condoning the content of the message formed by the sequence of letters, any more than printing a book of fiction is condoning the events in the story.

The people that write Obama's speeches aren't responsible for what they wrote because they were following orders.

John Woo wasn't responsible for the memo he wrote that condoned torture because he was following orders.

I have some advice for you, shut the fuck up. The "I was only following orders" shtick didn't work in the past, and it won't work now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And this is the exact same reason that was provided to condone discrimination based on skin color.

It is our unalienable right to discriminate for ANY reason. It is NOT our unalienable right to deny rights to somebody else by imposing our convictions, prejudice, bigotry, or discrimination on another person. The bakers did not do that. They did not attempt to deny the gay couple a cake or a wedding. They held no malice nor did they do anythng to punish or force the gay couple to do anything. All they did was exercise their conscience in choosing not to participate in something they could not condone in good conscience. The bakers were not the bigots. Those who threatened and attempted to hurt or destroy the bakers were.

Bigotry that hurts people is evil.

Intelligent people understand that.

Bigots do not. And those who would attempt to hurt or punish the bakers for their convictions are far worse bigots who discriminate in far more destructive ways than those bakers ever would be likely to do. And it is evil.

Your world is upside down on this one. The bigots were the bakers not the gay people that responded to the bigotry of the bakers by picketing the bakers for their discrimination against gays. Your accusation that the bakers were threatened is not supported by any evidence whatsoever other than the generic accusation made by the bigot bakers. Where is the proof of your accusation of these threats? What threat? What specific threat? What was threatened who was threatened and how where they threatened? Can you even name one word that was uttered in this threat? Just one word?

All those messages on Twitter and Facebook where they were threatened don't count as evidence in you world?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The farmer toils in the fields for a living, none of his works offend anyone. He knows nothing of where the end product of his work goes. He has no choice nor does he care, for none of it violates his conscience. The hens he dutifully raises, who lay the eggs which make the batter of that cake, carry on the life which God wills upon them; they serve their purpose in this world, they have no conscience of consequence, of right or wrong, of good or bad, or of sinfulness and righteousness. The couple in this bakery know what the Bible says about homosexuality, they have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of good or bad, a sense of sinfulness and righteousness.

The part of the farmer or the coop of chickens he raises is of no consequence. A non sequitur.

But the conscience of a man no longer matters. His beliefs are to be trampled underfoot with impunity, his sense of right and wrong judged summarily because he dares to have them. Who are you to judge the conscience of a man, or of any man, woman or child? Should you somehow come across the same dilemma this couple faced, expect no mercy from me, for you shewn none upon this couple or upon anyone who does likewise.



Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, for judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

James 2:12-13

The baker bakes in his kitchen. The farmer farms on his farm. But they both sell in the public market place. You forgive the farmer of selling their goods to a baker that bakes cakes for gay weddings. Then you judge the baker of sinning by selling the goods "baked" and assembled at a gay wedding. You would have been ok with this baker baking the cake that went to the gay wedding if a non-gay wedding planner did the purchase and assembled the cake for the baker? What is wrong with you that you associate baking and selling cakes to gays as performing and condoning gay sex acts?

I pay my taxes does that mean I "condone" and enable Obama? Your taxes paid for the road that leads to the location where the gays got married. Does that mean you condoned and enabled sin? How can you let your income be used to enable gay sin?

You're pretty dense for a Christian, RKM. Although you are Christian in name only perhaps, since you don't mind putting down your faith. You're incredibly naive. Like I said, the farmer has no choice, he works for his sole benefit. He bears no burden of having his conscience violated. This couple on the other hand... well I've explained it ad nauseam. You are also ranting. You are upset because I have clearly demonstrated that homosexuality as a practice is contemptible in the sight of God.

Drawing up hypothetical scenarios to support your argument makes you desperate. All of them are non sequiturs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The baker bakes in his kitchen. The farmer farms on his farm. But they both sell in the public market place. You forgive the farmer of selling their goods to a baker that bakes cakes for gay weddings. Then you judge the baker of sinning by selling the goods "baked" and assembled at a gay wedding. You would have been ok with this baker baking the cake that went to the gay wedding if a non-gay wedding planner did the purchase and assembled the cake for the baker? What is wrong with you that you associate baking and selling cakes to gays as performing and condoning gay sex acts?

I pay my taxes does that mean I "condone" and enable Obama? Your taxes paid for the road that leads to the location where the gays got married. Does that mean you condoned and enabled sin? How can you let your income be used to enable gay sin?

Apparently, you can't read, what a surprise.

By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

Can't read? I read quite well thank you.

>>> By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

I agree with this statement. What makes you think your statement is any different than my explanation of why baking a cake for gays does not condone the activities of gays? How is your apparent agreement of my statement of the difference between producing and using an indication that I can't read?

Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?

 

[Dot Com]

thanks A LOT for starting this thread BDBoop Now Republican Basers are bumping it like theres no tomorrow

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you know what it means?

If I bake a special order cake, and write Congratulations to Kate and Mary on it, I am condoning their relationship. If they buy a generic cake from me, and write it themselves, I am not.

See the difference?

No. You are executing your customers instructions to provide a sequence of letters on the cake. Putting letters on the cake in the sequence requested is not condoning the content of the message formed by the sequence of letters, any more than printing a book of fiction is condoning the events in the story.

The people that write Obama's speeches aren't responsible for what they wrote because they were following orders.

John Woo wasn't responsible for the memo he wrote that condoned torture because he was following orders.

I have some advice for you, shut the fuck up. The "I was only following orders" shtick didn't work in the past, and it won't work now.

How ignorant does one have to be to not know the difference between writing a condolence and performing the task of calligraphy for the writer to put the writer's words on paper or cake? The editor of a speech is not the same as the author of a speech. The person who transfers the edited speech to the teleprompter may not be the same person that edited and/or authored the speech. Further the person who reads the speech may not be the author of the speech. Still further, the author, editors, and calligraphers who transfer a message to a cake may not "condone" the message. The people who work on the cake most likely have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MESSAGE, let alone condone it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And this is the exact same reason that was provided to condone discrimination based on skin color.

The major difference being that discrimination under Jim Crow was required by law. Pretty sure you cannot say the same thing about the US now, but thanks for being stupid.

Wrong. The laws of the land most certainly do require discrimination against same sex sexual orientation when it comes to marriage. It's exactly the same as the Jim Crow laws only substitute sexual orientation for skin color.

Excuse me, I forgot I was talking to an idiot. There is a difference between the government and a private business. The government uses guns to force people to do things. They always have, and always will. The government got into the marriage business to tell people who they cannot marry, and nothing you can say will change that. All marriage law is aimed at restricting people's rights, and opening it to same sex couples will not suddenly change the fact that it still prevents people who want to marry from doing so. If you really want marraige equality, tell the government to go away entirely. If you don't, stop pretending you do.

Forcing anyone to do something they object to, which is what you advocate, is wrong. Stop pretending that the bakers here are preventing the couple from getting married just because they won't decorate a cake, it makes you look even dumber than you already do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Apparently, you can't read, what a surprise.

By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

Can't read? I read quite well thank you.

>>> By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

I agree with this statement. What makes you think your statement is any different than my explanation of why baking a cake for gays does not condone the activities of gays? How is your apparent agreement of my statement of the difference between producing and using an indication that I can't read?

Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?

Although I understand from your posts that this is a rhetorical question, are you really this retarded?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can't read? I read quite well thank you.

>>> By the way, the fact that someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to do something does not mean you condone it.

I agree with this statement. What makes you think your statement is any different than my explanation of why baking a cake for gays does not condone the activities of gays? How is your apparent agreement of my statement of the difference between producing and using an indication that I can't read?

Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?

Are you really this retarded?

Wow. Thus ends your argument. Namecalling heralds the death of any argument.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If man was made first... who was his mom? Additionally, if that was the only plan / scheme devised by god, then why are there some beasts that do not require a male/female pair to propagate? Further, why allow for sex on the fly if god only blesses long term marriages between a man and one woman? Still further, why did god permit plural marriages in the old times but now only permits marriage between one man and one woman?

Adam did not have a mom because he was created by God and beasts are not people who can read and comprehend what the Lord's word is and if premarital sex is what you mean by "sex on the fly", the Lord does not condone such a thing and if plural marriages were allowed at one point, the Lord must have changed his mind about that specific issue, but never once was his mind changed about same gender relationships. Why do you think that the Lord decided to "start over" by having a 40 days and 40 nights rain happen?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[RKMBrown]

The farmer toils in the fields for a living, none of his works offend anyone. He knows nothing of where the end product of his work goes. He has no choice nor does he care, for none of it violates his conscience. The hens he dutifully raises, who lay the eggs which make the batter of that cake, carry on the life which God wills upon them; they serve their purpose in this world, they have no conscience of consequence, of right or wrong, of good or bad, or of sinfulness and righteousness. The couple in this bakery know what the Bible says about homosexuality, they have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of good or bad, a sense of sinfulness and righteousness.

The part of the farmer or the coop of chickens he raises is of no consequence. A non sequitur.

But the conscience of a man no longer matters. His beliefs are to be trampled underfoot with impunity, his sense of right and wrong judged summarily because he dares to have them. Who are you to judge the conscience of a man, or of any man, woman or child? Should you somehow come across the same dilemma this couple faced, expect no mercy from me, for you shewn none upon this couple or upon anyone who does likewise.



Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, for judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

James 2:12-13

The baker bakes in his kitchen. The farmer farms on his farm. But they both sell in the public market place. You forgive the farmer of selling their goods to a baker that bakes cakes for gay weddings. Then you judge the baker of sinning by selling the goods "baked" and assembled at a gay wedding. You would have been ok with this baker baking the cake that went to the gay wedding if a non-gay wedding planner did the purchase and assembled the cake for the baker? What is wrong with you that you associate baking and selling cakes to gays as performing and condoning gay sex acts?

I pay my taxes does that mean I "condone" and enable Obama? Your taxes paid for the road that leads to the location where the gays got married. Does that mean you condoned and enabled sin? How can you let your income be used to enable gay sin?

You're pretty dense for a Christian, RKM. Although you are Christian in name only perhaps, since you don't mind putting down your faith. You're incredibly naive. Like I said, the farmer has no choice, he works for his sole benefit. He bears no burden of having his conscience violated. This couple on the other hand... well I've explained it ad nauseam. You are also ranting. You are upset because I have clearly demonstrated that homosexuality as a practice is contemptible in the sight of God.

Drawing up hypothetical scenarios to support your argument makes you desperate. All of them are non sequiturs.

The farmer has no choice, but the baker does. The farmer works for his sole benefit (yeah that's christian), but the baker works for the benefit of all (except baking cakes for gay marriages or other sinful gatherings). ROFL What planet do you live on?

 

[Alfalfa]

If man was made first... who was his mom? Additionally, if that was the only plan / scheme devised by god, then why are there some beasts that do not require a male/female pair to propagate? Further, why allow for sex on the fly if god only blesses long term marriages between a man and one woman? Still further, why did god permit plural marriages in the old times but now only permits marriage between one man and one woman?

Adam did not have a mom because he was created by God and beasts are not people who can read and comprehend what the Lord's word is and if premarital sex is what you mean by "sex on the fly", the Lord does not condone such a thing and if plural marriages were allowed at one point, the Lord must have changed his mind about that specific issue, but never once was his mind changed about same gender relationships. Why do you think that the Lord decided to "start over" by having a 40 days and 40 nights rain happen?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The Lord changes his mind?

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?

Are you really this retarded?

Wow. Thus ends your argument. Namecalling heralds the death of any argument.

He called me stupid. I'll respond to that in kind if and when I feel like it. Don't like it why don't you go back and edit your name calling.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. You are executing your customers instructions to provide a sequence of letters on the cake. Putting letters on the cake in the sequence requested is not condoning the content of the message formed by the sequence of letters, any more than printing a book of fiction is condoning the events in the story.

The people that write Obama's speeches aren't responsible for what they wrote because they were following orders.

John Woo wasn't responsible for the memo he wrote that condoned torture because he was following orders.

I have some advice for you, shut the fuck up. The "I was only following orders" shtick didn't work in the past, and it won't work now.

How ignorant does one have to be to not know the difference between writing a condolence and performing the task of calligraphy for the writer to put the writer's words on paper or cake? The editor of a speech is not the same as the author of a speech. The person who transfers the edited speech to the teleprompter may not be the same person that edited and/or authored the speech. Further the person who reads the speech may not be the author of the speech. Still further, the author, editors, and calligraphers who transfer a message to a cake may not "condone" the message. The people who work on the cake most likely have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MESSAGE, let alone condone it.

Editors have been held legally liable for articles they didn't fact check. Can you explain that given the fact that they didn't actually write them?

You are responsible for everything you do, even if you are only following orders. Unless you can explain why someone who does something under orders is not responsible for their actions, take that advice I gave you.

 

[Alfalfa]

Are you saying that the gays were holding a gun to their heads? Didn't you just post that no one threatened the bakers? Are you really this stupid?

Are you really this retarded?

Wow. Thus ends your argument. Namecalling heralds the death of any argument.

Hilarious.