Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).
This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!
But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.
Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.
If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.
Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.
This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!
But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.
Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.
If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.
Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.