"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[Silhouette]

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...

and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....

just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?

More than that, one aberrent sexual behavior cannot demand that a religious behavior subjegate itself to it. If a person is religious christian or muslim and others, they may not as a matter of faith support or enable homosexuality becoming normalized in the culture they live in. The lesson and warnings of Jude 1 as to Sodom are clear and compelling to the faithful. Requiring them to abandon their faith is requiring them to abandon their 1st Amendment rights.

If they refuse to make a gay wedding cake, that is their Constitutional right to do so via the 1st. Let the free market punish them if there be a punishment at all. Personally, I know swarms of traditional folks who would flock to such an establishment to show their support for adhering to their traditional belief system even in commerce. There are many passages in the Bible and Koran that implore the faithful to remain so in their daily business as well as their private lives.

 

[WorldWatcher]

well then....if a baker does NOT STOCK or make 'gay cakes' he should not be required to sell them....

it seems we agree on the books but not the cakes.....why...?

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", a baker sells cakes. The ingredients and the methods of construction are the same with both.

Now a baker can choose a business model that says "I only produce the cakes I want to produce, I place them in the display case and you choose the one you want. I don't do special orders."

Then customers can select a cake, or not.

On the other hand if the baker does take special order for wedding cakes (typically they have a portfolio of designs to choose from), then they can't discriminate and accept special orders from some but refuse special orders based on race, ethnicity, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to make custom wedding cakes, no one is forcing them to.


>>>>

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...

and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....

just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?

If a baker sells does sell wedding cakes...

* Then can't refuse them to Asians and because they cannot refuse based on race does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to Jews and because they cannot refuse based on religion does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to sex and because they cannot refuse based on gender does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to older couple and because they cannot refuse based on age does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state marital status is a category, then can't refuse them to divorcee and because they cannot refuse based on marital status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state veterans status is a category, then can't refuse them to someone that service in the military and because they cannot refuse based on veterans status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state sexual orientation is a category, then can't refuse them to lesbians and because they cannot refuse based on sexual orientation does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...

and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....

just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?

More than that, one aberrent sexual behavior cannot demand that a religious behavior subjegate itself to it. If a person is religious christian or muslim and others, they may not as a matter of faith support or enable homosexuality becoming normalized in the culture they live in. The lesson and warnings of Jude 1 as to Sodom are clear and compelling to the faithful. Requiring them to abandon their faith is requiring them to abandon their 1st Amendment rights.

If they refuse to make a gay wedding cake, that is their Constitutional right to do so via the 1st. Let the free market punish them if there be a punishment at all. Personally, I know swarms of traditional folks who would flock to such an establishment to show their support for adhering to their traditional belief system even in commerce. There are many passages in the Bible and Koran that implore the faithful to remain so in their daily business as well as their private lives.

Based on Elane Photography v. Willcock and the decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court which was upheld by the SCOTUS because they denied writ of certiorari, you are incorrect.

Public Accommodation laws are Constitutional and have been upheld at ever turn and at all levels.



If we are going to do away with Public Accommodation laws it's not going to be by hoping an activist judge will overturn the legislation passed by State legislatures and the Congress, we'll need to convince our elected representatives that they no longer full-fill the need that existed when they were passed. Those laws will need to be repealed.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

well then....if a baker does NOT STOCK or make 'gay cakes' he should not be required to sell them....



it seems we agree on the books but not the cakes.....why...?

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", a baker sells cakes. The ingredients and the methods of construction are the same with both.



Now a baker can choose a business model that says "I only produce the cakes I want to produce, I place them in the display case and you choose the one you want. I don't do special orders."



Then customers can select a cake, or not.



On the other hand if the baker does take special order for wedding cakes (typically they have a portfolio of designs to choose from), then they can't discriminate and accept special orders from some but refuse special orders based on race, ethnicity, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation.



If a baker doesn't want to make custom wedding cakes, no one is forcing them to.





>>>>

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...



and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....



just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?

OMG...the cake is just a fucking cake. I order cake #42 out of your portfolio, that's it. It's a wedding cake.

 

[Pop23]

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", a baker sells cakes. The ingredients and the methods of construction are the same with both.



Now a baker can choose a business model that says "I only produce the cakes I want to produce, I place them in the display case and you choose the one you want. I don't do special orders."



Then customers can select a cake, or not.



On the other hand if the baker does take special order for wedding cakes (typically they have a portfolio of designs to choose from), then they can't discriminate and accept special orders from some but refuse special orders based on race, ethnicity, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation.



If a baker doesn't want to make custom wedding cakes, no one is forcing them to.





>>>>

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...



and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....



just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?

OMG...the cake is just a fucking cake. I order cake #42 out of your portfolio, that's it. It's a wedding cake.

That will be $299.99 more that will be donated to an anti gay marriage organization. Would you like the matching cup cakes with those?

Problem solved

 

[Katzndogz]

The baker can also opt to say that all special order cakes are by private arrangement. The designs are removed from the portfolio.

Muslim bakeries already do this so it can't be that hard.

 

[Silhouette]

But they will be sued if they don't cater to the church of LGBT.

 

[Seawytch]

But they will be sued if they don't cater to the church of LGBT.

No, they get sued if they follow business practices that are against the law.

 

[mal]

But they will be sued if they don't cater to the church of LGBT.

No, they get sued if they follow business practices that are against the law.

They shouldn't have to Cater to your Perversion if they don't want to.

Should they have to Cater to NAMBLA?... The reason I ask is because the ACLU Defended NAMBLA's "right" to Advocate for their Cause, correct?...

And of course before 1994 NAMBLA was very Obviously Allied with Leading Gay Organizations like the ILGA and shortly after Stonewall National Gay Organizations were calling for the End of Age of Consent Laws while Marching WITH NAMBLA...

So again I ask... Should they have to Cater to NAMBLA?



peace...

 

[MrMax]

But they will be sued if they don't cater to the church of LGBT.

No, they get sued if they follow business practices that are against the law.

They shouldn't have to Cater to your Perversion if they don't want to.

Should they have to Cater to NAMBLA?... The reason I ask is because the ACLU Defended NAMBLA's "right" to Advocate for their Cause, correct?...

And of course before 1994 NAMBLA was very Obviously Allied with Leading Gay Organizations like the ILGA and shortly after Stonewall National Gay Organizations were calling for the End of Age of Consent Laws while Marching WITH NAMBLA...

So again I ask... Should they have to Cater to NAMBLA?



peace...

Having sex with children is illegal. Next.

 

[MrMax]

The baker can also opt to say that all special order cakes are by private arrangement. The designs are removed from the portfolio.

Muslim bakeries already do this so it can't be that hard.

Muslim bakeries? It's called a guy handing out pita bread from the back of his car.

 

[Seawytch]

No, they get sued if they follow business practices that are against the law.

They shouldn't have to Cater to your Perversion if they don't want to.

Should they have to Cater to NAMBLA?... The reason I ask is because the ACLU Defended NAMBLA's "right" to Advocate for their Cause, correct?...

And of course before 1994 NAMBLA was very Obviously Allied with Leading Gay Organizations like the ILGA and shortly after Stonewall National Gay Organizations were calling for the End of Age of Consent Laws while Marching WITH NAMBLA...

So again I ask... Should they have to Cater to NAMBLA?



peace...

Having sex with children is illegal. Next.

Mal knows that, he's just trolling. Best to ignore the 'phobe.

 

[High_Gravity]

Isn't a gay cake a gake?

 

[High_Gravity]

The baker can also opt to say that all special order cakes are by private arrangement. The designs are removed from the portfolio.

Muslim bakeries already do this so it can't be that hard.

Muslim bakeries? It's called a guy handing out pita bread from the back of his car.

 

[Silhouette]

The First Amendment prohibits religious belief from becoming US law. This is known as "the separation of church and state". Not everyone believes your religion so it is not "freedom" to impose your religious views on members of the general public through legislation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Writing a law based on a Bible passage which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman in order to discriminate against tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples is in direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. So the question stands, "Do Teabaggers want to abolish the First Amendment in order to push through their religious laws?"

Then why is the cult of LGBT trying to force what it does on other religions who forbid enabling such a cult to expand and thrive in a culture they're in?

LGBT is a de facto religion. They have rules of conduct, they actively evangelize [don't believe me? Watch TV] and they punish heretics within and outside the fold. Think of Anne Heche's name being synonymous with "traitor" and what they just did to the Mozilla guy..

Don't kid yourself. They freely admit this is a "culture war". They are one religion, a cult, actively seeking to extinguish the 1st Amendment rights, and thereby the active components of the faith they're after extinguishing. Key components of christianity interfere with the expansion of the new cult. Such as the forbidding of homosexual behavior and homosexual enabling. So one cult sees the other as the enemy that has to be extinguished in order for it's own dogma to survive. And it is actively engaged in doing just that under the ruse of "a legitimate civil rights movement". Behaviors outside federally-recognized religions don't have "civil rights". Especially when those "civil rights" seek to force the faithful of other longstanding religions abandon their core values to accomodate a new religion that embraces core dogma diametrically opposed to faithful christians, muslims etc.

Make no mistake. LGBTs DO NOT want a discussion of their idiology as having behavior at its base. Because if that topic gets explored, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that we are dealing with a de facto cult. And cults have no place expanding and in so doing forcing christians and other faithful to abandon their 1st Amendment rights.

 

[KevinWestern]

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

or does the state have the power to force a wicken book store to stock Bibles, Korans, and Torahs?

does the state have the power to force a muslim bookstore to sell Bibles and Torahs?

Does the state have the power to force the gift shop in St Peters to sell pendants with the star of david or the holy crescent?

where does this shit end? we are either free or we are not. right now 'not' is winning.

I think though this is a different subject.

You're comparing the state forcing businesses to not discriminate when it comes to serving (law abiding, peaceful) customers VS the state forcing businesses to sell any and all products they ask them to sell.

Two entirely, entirely different things with completely different implications. The latter is far, far more damaging to freedom.

 

[Redfish]

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

or does the state have the power to force a wicken book store to stock Bibles, Korans, and Torahs?

does the state have the power to force a muslim bookstore to sell Bibles and Torahs?

Does the state have the power to force the gift shop in St Peters to sell pendants with the star of david or the holy crescent?

where does this shit end? we are either free or we are not. right now 'not' is winning.

I think though this is a different subject.

You're comparing the state forcing businesses to not discriminate when it comes to serving (law abiding, peaceful) customers VS the state forcing businesses to sell any and all products they ask them to sell.

Two entirely, entirely different things with completely different implications. The latter is far, far more damaging to freedom.

No, its exactly the same thing, the Christian baker does not want to offer muslim or LGBT products in his business, the govt is telling him that he must.

 

[KevinWestern]

No, its exactly the same thing, the Christian baker does not want to offer muslim or LGBT products in his business, the govt is telling him that he must.

From a business perspective, it's quite a bit different Redfish. That's not a partisan viewpoint. I get that both are reductions to freedom, I understand, however government telling a business they "must serve all patrons" has little to no effect on the company's business model whereas they "must sell all products" will have a SIGNIFICANT effect on the company's business model, finances, etc.

It's two entirely different things - really.

 

[KevinWestern]

Then why is the cult of LGBT trying to force what it does on other religions who forbid enabling such a cult to expand and thrive in a culture they're in?

LGBT is a de facto religion. They have rules of conduct, they actively evangelize [don't believe me? Watch TV] and they punish heretics within and outside the fold. Think of Anne Heche's name being synonymous with "traitor" and what they just did to the Mozilla guy..

Don't kid yourself. They freely admit this is a "culture war". They are one religion, a cult, actively seeking to extinguish the 1st Amendment rights, and thereby the active components of the faith they're after extinguishing. Key components of christianity interfere with the expansion of the new cult. Such as the forbidding of homosexual behavior and homosexual enabling. So one cult sees the other as the enemy that has to be extinguished in order for it's own dogma to survive. And it is actively engaged in doing just that under the ruse of "a legitimate civil rights movement". Behaviors outside federally-recognized religions don't have "civil rights". Especially when those "civil rights" seek to force the faithful of other longstanding religions abandon their core values to accomodate a new religion that embraces core dogma diametrically opposed to faithful christians, muslims etc.

Make no mistake. LGBTs DO NOT want a discussion of their idiology as having behavior at its base. Because if that topic gets explored, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that we are dealing with a de facto cult. And cults have no place expanding and in so doing forcing christians and other faithful to abandon their 1st Amendment rights.

So you're OK with LGBT organizations being tax-exempt (given that they're a religion)?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", a baker sells cakes. The ingredients and the methods of construction are the same with both.

Now a baker can choose a business model that says "I only produce the cakes I want to produce, I place them in the display case and you choose the one you want. I don't do special orders."

Then customers can select a cake, or not.

On the other hand if the baker does take special order for wedding cakes (typically they have a portfolio of designs to choose from), then they can't discriminate and accept special orders from some but refuse special orders based on race, ethnicity, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to make custom wedding cakes, no one is forcing them to.


>>>>

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...

and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....

just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?

If a baker sells does sell wedding cakes...

* Then can't refuse them to Asians and because they cannot refuse based on race does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to Jews and because they cannot refuse based on religion does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to sex and because they cannot refuse based on gender does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to older couple and because they cannot refuse based on age does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state marital status is a category, then can't refuse them to divorcee and because they cannot refuse based on marital status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state veterans status is a category, then can't refuse them to someone that service in the military and because they cannot refuse based on veterans status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state sexual orientation is a category, then can't refuse them to lesbians and because they cannot refuse based on sexual orientation does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.​

>>>>

you still haven't answered the question....it's one thing to sell your usual wedding cake creations to any public customer be they gay, muslim, or pervs.....it's quite another thing entirely to force the baker to create new products demanded by those customers....

your normal cakes...

what the gays and others demand....should you be forced to make these if you don't want to....?