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

[Gadawg73]

Duh?

And your point?

The only way private power becomes stronger than government is if you are a delusional conspiracy nit that doesn't understand politics.

I understand enough to know that the GOP tries ultra hard to provide power to the wealthy. If the wealthy control the government, they are stronger than the government. Perhaps you are the one that does not understand politics.

Well the GOP are certainly sucking at it because now the power belongs to the moocher class.
They vote themselves paychecks and elect leaders that sign the checks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If folks do not know that most churches make money they are a little slow.
The church I used to go to went through money like hot cakes. Built a new building at 5 million with 12 stained glass windows at 30K a piece.
Now what do they do with that money? A lot of good things.
But money is the drive of many churches. They buy a lot of expensive things they do not need.
People can spend their own money on what they want to spend it on.

That doesn't prove they made money, it just proves they spent it, kinda like the government. Lots of churches go into debt to have the latest nice things, despite the fact that the bible specifically speaks against it.

But, by all means, keep spouting your hate.

Usually, churches start a separate fund specifically for things like building or remodeling, instead of using the general funds. But yes, churches are as subject to financial mismanagement just like any other organization full of humans.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Bullshit. All the laws regarding marriage say is that the government is not going to legally recognize same-sex relationships as official marital contracts. The Jim Crow laws, on the other hand, actively required private entities to deny service to minorities. Marriage laws don't require private citizens to do anything, UNTIL they're changed to favor homosexuals, at which time they become as illegally coercive as Jim Crow was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And isn't it really up to the individual to decide if they want to abdicate responsibility for their actions and the words that they transcribe? Just because some immoral doofus on the Internet decides that it's "just transcribing letters with no meaning" doesn't obligate anyone else to view it that way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

How did he create Adam? Was Adam ever a baby? How did Adam eat as a baby? Was he raised by the animals? Angels?

"Read the book? Why the hell should I read the book when I can pester people on the Internet to teach me Bible 101 classes while I make asinine comments on something I haven't bothered to learn anything about?"

Pretty much says it all about taking leftists seriously, hmm?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sure, we can play "Who's The Bigger Hypocrite" later. But as it stands, you have been on a name calling tirade for a while now. So, if you have any real arguments, use them in place of the rank puerility you're displaying right now.

Some people do not understand the difference between making a point while telling someone they're stupid for needing it made, and calling someone stupid as the entire point you're making.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

How did he create Adam? Was Adam ever a baby? How did Adam eat as a baby? Was he raised by the animals? Angels?

"Read the book? Why the hell should I read the book when I can pester people on the Internet to teach me Bible 101 classes while I make asinine comments on something I haven't bothered to learn anything about?"

Pretty much says it all about taking leftists seriously, hmm?

But even somebody who is incapable of arguing a concept whether that be the Bible or the topic of this thread is entitled, as an unalienable right, to his own beliefs however bigoted, warped, prejudiced, or trollish they might be.

Just as all of us are entitled to the wisdom to reject those same beliefs and disapprove of the bigotry, warpedness, prejudice, and trollism.

But, if we believe in liberty and unalienable rights, none of us are entitled to demand that others believe as we believe or else we will punish and/or destroy them.

This is the whole point I have been making on this thread. I do not defend the beliefs of the bakers. Their beliefs are theirs to hold and are none of my business. I only defend their right to hold the beliefs they hold. And their right to choose not to participate in something that they do not condone without having those claiming moral supeiority descending upon them to punish and/or destroy them.

 

[Gadawg73]

I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.

Such snideness. You should know better. Now you're just making fun of them. If anyone here had a real argument against this couple for what they did, they wouldn't resort to such asininity. Nothing personal, sir.

 

[Foxfyre]

I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.

But you see, the bakers did not act or care what anybody eats. They did not deny the gay couple a wedding cake nor a wedding. They left that to the conscience and convictions of the gay couple and did nothing to obstruct them in doing whatever they chose to do.

They did elect to exercise their unalienable right to not participate themselves in something they could not condone.

Your doing a background check on the hypothetical person you describe would NOT require you to condone, participate in, or in any other way be involved in ham sandwiches or shrimp cocktails.

And therein is the difference and why your example is a totally different thing from the issue in the OP.

And nevertheless, I would defend your right to close your own business for any reason you might have for doing that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

And isn't it really up to the individual to decide if they want to abdicate responsibility for their actions and the words that they transcribe? Just because some immoral doofus on the Internet decides that it's "just transcribing letters with no meaning" doesn't obligate anyone else to view it that way.

He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just got a call from someone that wants me to do a background investigation into 3 finalists for one of their positions at their business.
I just found out the owner that wants to hire me eats ham sandwiches and shrimp cocktails.
No way I working for that immoral scum. I am closing my business down because government may force me to work for them.

Good, then you won't keep pretending you are morally superior to people with morals.

 

[Mertex]

The only way private power becomes stronger than government is if you are a delusional conspiracy nit that doesn't understand politics.

I understand enough to know that the GOP tries ultra hard to provide power to the wealthy. If the wealthy control the government, they are stronger than the government. Perhaps you are the one that does not understand politics.

Well the GOP are certainly sucking at it because now the power belongs to the moocher class.
They vote themselves paychecks and elect leaders that sign the checks.

The moocher class? I guess you need some attitude adjustment. And this from a right-wing rag.

From the, “you never hear about that from the media” file – Those “Evil, Rich People” that Democrats are always wailing about are actually – Democrats.

While I don’t agree in referring to rich people as “Evil”, Democrats are often making such accusations. But what most people don’t realize is that the Top 3 “richest” people in the country are all Democrats. This list includes: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett & Larry Ellison are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $126 Billion Dollars.
Those ?Evil, Rich People? ? are Democrats | New American Gazette


In response to these pernicious memes, some Democrats have pointed to analyses, such as those of the Tax Foundation ("Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Footing the Bill"), which show that states that tend to support Republican presidential candidates (red states) also tend to receive more from the federal government than they send in taxes. Thus red states are welfare states.
Red States are Welfare States - dKosopedia

I bet that came as a shock! Learn something new every day when you go somewhere besides Faux News.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

And isn't it really up to the individual to decide if they want to abdicate responsibility for their actions and the words that they transcribe? Just because some immoral doofus on the Internet decides that it's "just transcribing letters with no meaning" doesn't obligate anyone else to view it that way.

He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

 

[Kondor3]

114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?

 

[TemplarKormac]

114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?

Welcome to the fray, my friend.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And isn't it really up to the individual to decide if they want to abdicate responsibility for their actions and the words that they transcribe? Just because some immoral doofus on the Internet decides that it's "just transcribing letters with no meaning" doesn't obligate anyone else to view it that way.

He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Oooh, that one probably stuck, just like your arguments.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How did he create Adam? Was Adam ever a baby? How did Adam eat as a baby? Was he raised by the animals? Angels?

"Read the book? Why the hell should I read the book when I can pester people on the Internet to teach me Bible 101 classes while I make asinine comments on something I haven't bothered to learn anything about?"

Pretty much says it all about taking leftists seriously, hmm?

But even somebody who is incapable of arguing a concept whether that be the Bible or the topic of this thread is entitled, as an unalienable right, to his own beliefs however bigoted, warped, prejudiced, or trollish they might be.

Just as all of us are entitled to the wisdom to reject those same beliefs and disapprove of the bigotry, warpedness, prejudice, and trollism.

But, if we believe in liberty and unalienable rights, none of us are entitled to demand that others believe as we believe or else we will punish and/or destroy them.

This is the whole point I have been making on this thread. I do not defend the beliefs of the bakers. Their beliefs are theirs to hold and are none of my business. I only defend their right to hold the beliefs they hold. And their right to choose not to participate in something that they do not condone without having those claiming moral supeiority descending upon them to punish and/or destroy them.

Right there with you on that. Far be it from me to prevent leftist bigots from exercising their right to make public fools of themselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And isn't it really up to the individual to decide if they want to abdicate responsibility for their actions and the words that they transcribe? Just because some immoral doofus on the Internet decides that it's "just transcribing letters with no meaning" doesn't obligate anyone else to view it that way.

He doesn't even view it that way if those words say something he decides is offensive.

I bet you two are fun to be around at library book burnings.

Oh, like WE are the ones advocating the suppression of ideas and opinions we don't like. Not hardly, Jack.

 

[bendog]

114 pages... have we dabbled long enough yet in the Land of Fruits and Nuts?

Not that, Sir, was offensive. LOL