If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[Slyhunter]

He said, on Fox, that he would sell a cake to anyone who wants to buy it, but he's not going to design a cake for a gay wedding.

What was the design and how does it impinge on his religious freedom?

Doesn't matter what the design was. Could have been a plain sheet cake. The point is, he felt he was participating in the ceremony by using his creative skills in support of the event.

Too damned bad. he refused services in a place of public accommodation

That gay couple went out of their way to find a religious baker. They passed by tens of other bakers to reach this shop. They picked on this baker because he is religious. They had an agenda to wipe out religious people and their rights.

Prove it . Prove that is why they went to this baker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You probably have no problem with lgbt folks interrupted church services with their shit. When you folks said leave us alone what happens in the privacy in our bedroom shouldn't matter you never intended on keeping it in the privacy of your bedrooms.

 

[Slyhunter]

He said, on Fox, that he would sell a cake to anyone who wants to buy it, but he's not going to design a cake for a gay wedding.

What was the design and how does it impinge on his religious freedom?

Doesn't matter what the design was. Could have been a plain sheet cake. The point is, he felt he was participating in the ceremony by using his creative skills in support of the event.

Too damned bad. he refused services in a place of public accommodation

That gay couple went out of their way to find a religious baker. They passed by tens of other bakers to reach this shop. They picked on this baker because he is religious. They had an agenda to wipe out religious people and their rights.

Prove it . Prove that is why they went to this baker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” Aaron Klein told reporters. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

But because the Kleins said that they didn’t feel comfortable with fulfilling that particular order because of the event that it involved, the women filed a discrimination complaint against the bakers.

Some Christians believe that being a part of a same-sex event violates the biblical command in 1 Timothy 5:22 not to be “partakers in other men’s sins,” as well as the command in Ephesians 5:7, “Be not ye therefore partakers with them.”

‘We Lost Everything’: Bakers Give Emotional Plea in Appealing $135,000 Fine for Declining ‘Gay Wedding’

 

[Slyhunter]

LGTB groups are purposely targeting religious establishments when they can go to non-religious establishments to get their needs fulfilled.
LGTB groups believe religious should not have the right to practice their religion and should be forced to accept LGBT's against their own beliefs. That's in Baker, Schools, and churches.

LGBT Activists Target Christian Colleges over Title IX Exemptions

LGBT Activists Target Christian Colleges over Title IX Exemptions

The Oregon-based company was targeted by LGBT activists when owners Aaron and Melissa Klein said they wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding because of their Christian beliefs.

Crippled by LGBT Targeting, Christian Bakers Close Shop

Gay Group Demands Christian Churches Be SHUT DOWN for Opposing Same-Sex Marriage

Gay Group Demands Christian Churches Be SHUT DOWN for Opposing...

The largest gay group in one Western state is demanding that Churches who follow the Bible be shut down by the government.

The folks at Conservative Colorado got a screen shot of the post before Artery deleted it.

Today, in a stunning statement, Jeran Artery, Chairman of Wyoming Equality argued that churches who do not support same sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status.

“Churches that lobby to have freedoms and rights taken away from ANYONE should absolutely have their 501(c)3 status revoked!!”

Talk about tolerance, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. Disagree with Artery’s views of same sex marriage and your church will be shut down.

Gone are the days of pluralism. This is what tyranny looks like.


But notice who he did not mention: mosques. Gays never criticize Islam, even though it is only Muslims who are hanging gays from cranes and throwing them from buildings every sngle week.

Why don't they target Muslim establishment? Why do they only target Christian ones?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Fact is, the opposing parties will never see this as anything besides discrimination, rather than a religious observance. The only way to satisfy them is when only their agenda is recognized and they have stamped out any opposition.

I wonder, sometimes, if any of these people actually care about the issue, as opposed to just using it as a way to show their opposition to the other side.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

One might assume the same of you. Do you understand the concept of the Individual's right to his or her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Do you know what that means? Do you understand the concept of coercion of man with regard to his labor? I for one, get the impression that you might not.

Do you understand that rights are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly? Do you understand that as members of society, people cannot just what ever they want to do, whenever they want and to whoever they want to do it to? Do you understand that the person on the receiving end of your exercising your rights has rights also? I for one, get the impression that you might not.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The federal government is not sovereign. It lacks just power to authorize or to empower any person, any group, or any organization to violate any Individual's rights to life, liberty, or any pursuit of happiness, including any of their supporting rights such as their rights to property or freedom of association.

Read the constitution. Rights are not absolute.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You might think that the federal government has the power to send men with guns to force Individuals or groups of Individuals to relinquish their property to other Individuals or to other groups of Individuals who are of the confused impression that they're entitled to someone elses private property, but you are mistaken.

I suspect that you would not feel quite the same way it a God fearing conservative were refused service in a place of public accommodation

 

[joaquinmiller]

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.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

Their business, their rules. Like the signs say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..."

Especially black or brown people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The gay couple were served. The baker was not willing to do what they wanted. Big difference.

No they weren't, the couple was refused service when they went for an appointment to order a wedding cake. There was never any discussion of design.


.>>>>

The baker said they could buy a cake. He just wouldn't design one for them.

"The Baker" needs to grow the fuck up and learn that he can't have everything his way all of the time. He needs to learn that other people have feelings and that it is not all about him. Most of all he, and the rest of you need to understand the real and true meaning of religious freedom. Hint- it is not about what other do and how they live.

Bottom line- he refused service based on sexual orientation. Fuck him.

You have no empathy for those who have differing opinions than your own. You are the one with the problem.

If you say so Boss. Whatever you say

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What was the design and how does it impinge on his religious freedom?

Doesn't matter what the design was. Could have been a plain sheet cake. The point is, he felt he was participating in the ceremony by using his creative skills in support of the event.

Too damned bad. he refused services in a place of public accommodation

That gay couple went out of their way to find a religious baker. They passed by tens of other bakers to reach this shop. They picked on this baker because he is religious. They had an agenda to wipe out religious people and their rights.

Prove it . Prove that is why they went to this baker


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” Aaron Klein told reporters. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

But because the Kleins said that they didn’t feel comfortable with fulfilling that particular order because of the event that it involved, the women filed a discrimination complaint against the bakers.

Some Christians believe that being a part of a same-sex event violates the biblical command in 1 Timothy 5:22 not to be “partakers in other men’s sins,” as well as the command in Ephesians 5:7, “Be not ye therefore partakers with them.”

‘We Lost Everything’: Bakers Give Emotional Plea in Appealing $135,000 Fine for Declining ‘Gay Wedding’

This does not prove that they were maliciously targeted. Quite the opposite. It shows that they had every reason to expect to be served as they had been in the past and were blind sided.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This does not prove that they were maliciously targeted. Quite the opposite. It shows that they had every reason to expect to be served as they had been in the past and were blind sided.

These sneaky lesbians. They arrange for one of their parents to divorce years ago so that two years prior to their targeting of this business they could do an undercover operation where the mother of one of the brides had ordered a wedding cake for her own wedding and it had gone so well they decided to be repeat business at the same shop. Then to top if off they attended a bridal convention/conference/show and one of the owners for Sweetcakes invited them to make an appointment.

Sneaky lesbians.


.>>>>

 

[Dragonlady]

The poor Christian bakers as victims! The article completely ignores that after the complaint was filed, the bakers encouraged others to attack the couple, publishing their names addresses and phone number on the bakers’ FaceBook page. The couple were harassed and had their lives and the lives of their children threatened as a result. The couple feared that they would lose custody of the children they were in the process of adopting as a result of the threats. Such good Christians these people. Threatening women and children.

A judge ordered the bakers to remove this information their FaceBook page to end this harassment and the bakers refused. This violation of the court order lead to the $135,000 fine.

The bakers have behaved abominably throughout. Now they’re boo hooing that they’ve been ruined. They deserve to be.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Holy *$#$ dude!! Sounds like you're having a major meltdown !! My definition of religious freedom is the ability to openly and freely practice and preach your faith. Period. No one is stopping these photographers or bakers from doing that. Baking a cake is not "participating in the gay wedding."

And of course your definition of "participate" is the only one that matters. But, let's go with your narrow definition. If that's the case, then why have gay couples sued photographers who would not attend and photograph their wedding? Attending and photographing a wedding is certainly "participating" in the wedding, is it not?

That is HS!! If that Muslim photographer were to be sued, it would not be for discrimination so that scenario has nothing to do with these other cases.

Woah! Wait a minute now! If the Muslim photographer refuses to provide a "service he advertises" on religious grounds, you guys have been insisting for years that that *is* "discrimination." He's discriminating against the parents and the daughter by refusing to provide them a service that he offers and he's doing so because the parents want him to use his service in a way that he finds morally offensive. If you say, "Well, he wouldn't photograph any other parents' young girls in bikinis either," you just conceded the point because you could say the same thing about Christian bakers: they would not bake a gay wedding cake for any gay couple, not just one specific couple.

Sorry, Charlie, I can tell you know nothing about logic, but you are severely contradicting yourself all over the place.

Your second paragraph is just senseless blather coming from the voices in your head. You're just throwing as much dung at the wall that you can spit up and hope that something sticks.

Uh, the fact that Twitter CEO Dorsey felt compelled to apologize for eating at Chick-Fil-A because of angry reactions from fellow liberals was all over the news (see below). Find me one time when conservatives have bashed a fellow conservative for eating at restaurant known to be owned by liberals. In case you missed all the news reports about Dorsey's apology, here you go:

Twitter CEO Caves To Liberal Backlash, Says He Was Wrong To Eat Chick-Fil-A

https://nypost.com/2018/06/11/twitter-ceo-shamed-for-eating-chick-fil-a-during-pride-month/

Or just Google "Jack Dorsey apologizes eating chick-fil-a" and you'll get dozens of hits.

And the fact that liberals in some areas have tried to block Chick-Fil-A from opening new franchises or to revoke their business license has also been in the news. You can Google it.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you understand that rights are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly? Do you understand that as members of society, people cannot just what ever they want to do, whenever they want and to whoever they want to do it to? Do you understand that the person on the receiving end of your exercising your rights has rights also? I for one, get the impression that you might not.

So....

Then do the children standing on the sidelines by invitation or marching along with have rights when it comes to people in gay pride parades doing lewd acts of deviant sex in front of them? As a unified "LGBT" endemic expose' of "pride" in their culture?

What state legalized lewd sex acts in front of kids first? Was it California? I'll bet it was. Try those same acts in front of a schoolyard at recess the next day without a rainbow armband on and see how fast it takes the cops to get there and put a little red dot on your house after you're prosecuted.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And of course your definition of "participate" is the only one that matters. But, let's go with your narrow definition. If that's the case, then why have gay couples sued photographers who would not attend and photograph their wedding? Attending and photographing a wedding is certainly "participating" in the wedding, is it not?

My definition of participate is the logical and correct one it's the one that the bigots and hysterical prayer warriors who insist on weaponizing religion don't like. As for the photographers, I will concede that having to actually attend the wedding is, in fact participation

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Woah! Wait a minute now! If the Muslim photographer refuses to provide a "service he advertises" on religious grounds, you guys have been insisting for years that that *is* "discrimination." He's discriminating against the parents and the daughter by refusing to provide them a service that he offers and he's doing so because the parents want him to use his service in a way that he finds morally offensive. If you say, "Well, he wouldn't photograph any other parents' young girls in bikinis either," you just conceded the point because you could say the same thing about Christian bakers: they would not bake a gay wedding cake for any gay couple, not just one specific couple.

Sorry, Charlie, I can tell you know nothing about logic, but you are severely contradicting yourself all over the place.

You are terribly confused. Girls in swim suits are not mentioned in the laws against discrimination And stop altering my text. Are you too prudish and proper to repost "BULLSHIT" ?

 

[Silhouette]

My definition of participate is the logical and correct one it's the one that the bigots and hysterical prayer warriors who insist on weaponizing religion don't like. As for the photographers, I will concede that having to actually attend the wedding is, in fact participation

Would you prescribe that anyone, faithful or secular should be forced to bake a cake celebrating a group known to embrace in "pride" public acts of deviant sex where they invite children to watch?

Just curious on where you draw the line when it comes to forced-participation with ideologies that embrace child sex crimes?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Uh, the fact that Twitter CEO Dorsey felt compelled to apologize for eating at Chick-Fil-A because of angry reactions from fellow liberals was all over the news (see below). Find me one time when conservatives have bashed a fellow conservative for eating at restaurant known to be owned by liberals. In case you missed all the news reports about Dorsey's apology, here you go:

Twitter CEO Caves To Liberal Backlash, Says He Was Wrong To Eat Chick-Fil-A

https://nypost.com/2018/06/11/twitter-ceo-shamed-for-eating-chick-fil-a-during-pride-month/

Or just Google "Jack Dorsey apologizes eating chick-fil-a" and you'll get dozens of hits.

And the fact that liberals in some areas have tried to block Chick-Fil-A from opening new franchises or to revoke their business license has also been in the news. You can Google it.

Oh please! I am not getting sucked down that inane rabbit hole. I have better things to do.

 

[Redfish]

Last night Sarah Sanders was refused service at a restaurant because she works for the president of the USA. I thought discrimination was illegal. She should file a discrimination suit on Monday.

This is another example of the "tolerant " left. They are the most intolerant beings on planet earth. The only good thing about this is that they are destroying the democrat party. The party of Kennedy and Truman is DEAD.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The federal government is not sovereign. It lacks just power to authorize or to empower any person, any group, or any organization to violate any Individual's rights to life, liberty, or any pursuit of happiness, including any of their supporting rights such as their rights to property or freedom of association.

Read the constitution. Rights are not absolute.

Actually, the constitution says that certain rights are absolute. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed", that sounds pretty absolute to me.

Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, that also sounds pretty absolute to me.