Muslim Bakeries Refuse To Make Gay Wedding Cake...& No Rabid Protests From Liberals?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ok, everyone knows the story of the Christian-owned bakery whose owners refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. They argued businesses should / do have the right to refuse to support certain events when those events are against their religious or moral beliefs.

Liberals saw things differently, people lost their minds, Christians were demonized, the govt got involved, and they wanted to force the owners to make the cake or be punished.

So, did / are they getting fair and equal treatment?

Didja hear about the Muslim bakarieS (yes, plural) that refuse to make same-Sex wedding cakes? Of course you didn't! My phone won't allow me to post the specific link, but - if you aren't lazy - go to LouderwithCrowder.com and watch the video of this guy going into numerous Muslim bakeries and getting rejected everytime he asked them to make a same-sex wedding cake.

Funny, you would think this would be all over the news and that Obama & his DOJ would be all over this, right?

The libs & govt aren't all over this because they believe in appeasing Muslims while targeting Christians unfairly. Why? Maybe 1 reason is they know, unlike with Christians, Muslims (Islamic Extremists) will cut your head off or blow your ass up if you mess with them

This isn't a major problem anyway because hardly any homosexuals go into Muslim bakeries. Why? Because they know these same people burn, behead, and hang gays in their country where they came from. So if they don't want to serve gays, no problem - just stay the hell away from them, leave them alone, and 'pick' on the Christians. They are easier targets...

How many cases of Muslim cake bakers beheading gays can you list?

That's idiotic... even by your standards.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because *you* seem to have this misguided idea that rights are unlimited

So, if I'm to extrapolate from your assertion...

That means you have the idea that rights should be regulated? Please by all means correct me if I'm wrong.

Regulated? If that is what you call placing limitations on rights, then yes.

I do not believe the right of free speech means you can slander, libel or create public panic.

I do not believe the right to freedom of religion should include forcing those religious values on anyone else.

I do not believe the right to assembly includes leading lynch mob.

All of our rights have limitations.

Do you think they should be unlimited?

Forcing beliefs on another. That is what many groups and even the government has been doing. Religion is nothing but a belief system, we all follow a religion of some sort.

Definition of religion
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

So forcing beliefs on another is wrong and this is my issue with many of the government laws forcing people to accept others beliefs.

It's the religious people trying to force others to accept their beliefs. They are using religion to try to write themselves their own set of laws without regard to the constitution.

 

[kaz]

When a state law is enacted, the state is responsible for enforcing it.

Then why can NC enforce theirs? When any law is passed, whether it be one you like or don't, the state is obligated to enforce it, correct?

I believe NC will be enforcing theirs. I look forward to someone like this....

walking into the womens' room in NC because he was born female and has that on his birth certificate.

Let them enforce.....until action is taken to get the law repealed........WHICH IS...what I've been telling posters all along is what they should do with PA laws they don't like.

You also look forward to a 35 year old pedophile claiming he was born female and walking into a room of little girls?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ok, everyone knows the story of the Christian-owned bakery whose owners refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. They argued businesses should / do have the right to refuse to support certain events when those events are against their religious or moral beliefs.

Liberals saw things differently, people lost their minds, Christians were demonized, the govt got involved, and they wanted to force the owners to make the cake or be punished.

So, did / are they getting fair and equal treatment?

Didja hear about the Muslim bakarieS (yes, plural) that refuse to make same-Sex wedding cakes? Of course you didn't! My phone won't allow me to post the specific link, but - if you aren't lazy - go to LouderwithCrowder.com and watch the video of this guy going into numerous Muslim bakeries and getting rejected everytime he asked them to make a same-sex wedding cake.

Funny, you would think this would be all over the news and that Obama & his DOJ would be all over this, right?

The libs & govt aren't all over this because they believe in appeasing Muslims while targeting Christians unfairly. Why? Maybe 1 reason is they know, unlike with Christians, Muslims (Islamic Extremists) will cut your head off or blow your ass up if you mess with them

This isn't a major problem anyway because hardly any homosexuals go into Muslim bakeries. Why? Because they know these same people burn, behead, and hang gays in their country where they came from. So if they don't want to serve gays, no problem - just stay the hell away from them, leave them alone, and 'pick' on the Christians. They are easier targets...

How many cases of Muslim cake bakers beheading gays can you list?

That's idiotic... even by your standards.

I didn't say it, your RWnut pal did:

"This isn't a major problem anyway because hardly any homosexuals go into Muslim bakeries. Why? Because they know these same people burn, behead, and hang gays in their country where they came from."

He accused Muslim bakers in the US of having been gay murderers before they came here.

I simply asked him to cite some.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's okay if the muzz writes their own laws.

The real fight the left has is only against Christians. When it's one anti Christian group against another anti Christian group, the most violent gets the support. The left has no problem with muzz killing gays.

 

[kaz]

Then work to get rid of PA laws.

I am you stupid dyke, how many times do I need to explain that to you? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Do you have a learning disability? Did I ask you that question before? No?

And why do you have to be rude? What is it exactly you are doing to get rid of PA laws in your state? Tell us.

Oh, and I do apologize if you have told us in the past....I've missed it....could you link or point out where you did so?

He's rude because you're a dingbat who refuses to give a straight answer to a straight question. Dodging, dancing and weaseling and running away are your stock in trade.

I see that you insult instead of debate civilly too. Speaking of dodging...notice how Kaz claims to have answered my question about what she is doing to get rid of PA laws in her state....and yet cannot show me where she made that answer. Perhaps you've seen it and can point it out to me? Be a pal and point it out.

He has answered it as well as you have ever answered any question. You don't debate civilly a dingbat who refuses to give a straight answer to a straight question, who dodges and weasels and runs away. You want civil debate? Then try actually debating.

I've clearly answered it at least 25 times for the dingbat and her bunkie the wytch. They just don't like my answer. I think persuading people is more effective than screaming and intimidation. I change minds, they silence. I don't know any possible way to answer it more directly. They both just tag team why I'm not bashing people with signs like they would. None of the protesters following Trump have changed a mind. But then that's not their goal, silencing him is their goal.

She's crystal clear on that, we've had the conversation too many times. He's just being the stupid dyke that she is.

 

[kaz]

You can assume nothing. I'm asking you, and you keep ignoring the question, what YOU are personally doing to get rid of PA laws beyond bitching about state and local laws on a message board. You oppose PA laws, but have you called your Senator and Congresscritter and demanded they repeal Title II of the CRA? That's the law that requires that I, a gay person, serve a Christian in all 50 states.

I will continue to ignore any questions about my personal life. What I do is none of your business. So stop asking me or I'll report you to the mods, asshole.

So if you don't want me assuming, I'll ask you. Do you support laws that punish a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone?

But how do you know if you're doing the right things in life if you don't tell Seawytch so she can determine that and inform you if what you are doing is adequate or not? I mean she is the standard, she says so

Well, you're obviously doing it wrong. Gays are getting married just like straight folks (despite your "educating them) and in some places you have to serve them, just like you have to serve black folks. (Oh and a majority of Americans support adding gay folks to PA laws, not getting rid of all of them) oopsie!

You really suck at this educating thing I reckon.

Swish, complete evasion. You asked me why I haven't personally changed the PA law. I asked you for an example of how you met your standard. What laws have you personally changed, the standard you hold me to.

Man up, Charlie. Your standard, you demonstrate how you've done it

I don't expect you do it all by yourself Kazzie, but I would think you'd do something beyond whining on an internet message board, but that's all you've got.

I mean, sure, you could call your congressman, but you know you'd get laughed at for suggesting a repeal of Title II of the CRA. We already know what happened to Rand when he suggested in on Rachel Maddow...he now pretends he never suggested it.

Kind of like how gays felt when they called their congresscritters demanding that DOMA or DADT be repealed back in the day... but we didn't give up and just whine about it on a message board. We went out and fought for it. We raised money, we made phone calls, we even went door to door.

But how are those opposed to PA laws fighting them? Are they going after the granddaddy of all PA laws? No, they bitch and moan about "Christian persecution" because 50 year old laws also include "the gheys" in some places.

Whine away Kaz old boy, it's as effective as...

Stopped reading at whining, I'm sick of your schtick

 

[kaz]

I will continue to ignore any questions about my personal life. What I do is none of your business. So stop asking me or I'll report you to the mods, asshole.

So if you don't want me assuming, I'll ask you. Do you support laws that punish a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone?

But how do you know if you're doing the right things in life if you don't tell Seawytch so she can determine that and inform you if what you are doing is adequate or not? I mean she is the standard, she says so

Well, you're obviously doing it wrong. Gays are getting married just like straight folks (despite your "educating them) and in some places you have to serve them, just like you have to serve black folks. (Oh and a majority of Americans support adding gay folks to PA laws, not getting rid of all of them) oopsie!

You really suck at this educating thing I reckon.

Swish, complete evasion. You asked me why I haven't personally changed the PA law. I asked you for an example of how you met your standard. What laws have you personally changed, the standard you hold me to.

Man up, Charlie. Your standard, you demonstrate how you've done it

I don't expect you do it all by yourself Kazzie, but I would think you'd do something beyond whining on an internet message board, but that's all you've got.

I mean, sure, you could call your congressman, but you know you'd get laughed at for suggesting a repeal of Title II of the CRA. We already know what happened to Rand when he suggested in on Rachel Maddow...he now pretends he never suggested it.

Kind of like how gays felt when they called their congresscritters demanding that DOMA or DADT be repealed back in the day... but we didn't give up and just whine about it on a message board. We went out and fought for it. We raised money, we made phone calls, we even went door to door.

But how are those opposed to PA laws fighting them? Are they going after the granddaddy of all PA laws? No, they bitch and moan about "Christian persecution" because 50 year old laws also include "the gheys" in some places.

Whine away Kaz old boy, it's as effective as...

^ This

What did she say? I didn't read it. Just so you know, ignoring everything I say then whining that I'm not courteous just makes me laugh at you. Since you want to be courteous, maybe you can process her point and actually process my argument and explain it courtiously

 

[Seawytch]

Its a cake people, there lots of bakeries. Find one that wants to make it, pay for it and eat it already.

I can sympathize with being rebuffed. A wedding is a huge deal and it's an emotional deal. It's an even huger deal when it's something that's been long denied to you. You should be able to have a reasonable expectation of being treated like any other customer looking for the same product. Now if the person went looking for a refusal, I'd have no sympathy but that isn't the case in the Oregon case.

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

No, it's not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

I have yet to go to a wedding where the cake baker was an integral part of the wedding ceremony....have you? Usually the cake gets delivered to the reception and that's that.

Irrelevant, but the biggest crime against your fellow citizens are the cases where photographers were forced to witness and photograph fag weddings and kisses, that is sick

And still those cases lost in court.

Why are anti gay photographers any different than racist ones that are repulsed by interracial couples?

 

[kaz]

I can sympathize with being rebuffed. A wedding is a huge deal and it's an emotional deal. It's an even huger deal when it's something that's been long denied to you. You should be able to have a reasonable expectation of being treated like any other customer looking for the same product. Now if the person went looking for a refusal, I'd have no sympathy but that isn't the case in the Oregon case.

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

No, it's not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

I have yet to go to a wedding where the cake baker was an integral part of the wedding ceremony....have you? Usually the cake gets delivered to the reception and that's that.

Irrelevant, but the biggest crime against your fellow citizens are the cases where photographers were forced to witness and photograph fag weddings and kisses, that is sick

And still those cases lost in court.

Why are anti gay photographers any different than racist ones that are repulsed by interracial couples?

They aren't, no photographer should be forced to work an interracial wedding either or any other wedding for any other reason they want. We are citizens, not subjects. Find a photographer who wants to work the wedding, most people do. And you know that's my view, which is why I'm insulting you and your dyke buddy at this point. You keep ignoring my view you know well and asking your same stupid questions again.

Last thing I'd have wanted at my interracial wedding 27 years ago was a photographer who didn't want to be there. Yeah, I'm going to get their best work. That you do want someone who doesn't want to be there is just your authoritarian leftism, it's about power, not right.

And seriously, baking the cake? Gee, I spilled the flour on the floor, better get the broom and dustpan and sweep that up. Looks OK to me though, don't want to waste it. Hmmm...maybe we can put in half the sugar, that would taste great. Ooops, I made too much icing, better lick off the extra.

Yeah, you eat that cake ...

 

[Coyote]

Please provide examples of Muslim bakers that have been given a free pass.

Easy.

Show me an example where they haven't.

Talk about a total cop out. So you can't provide an example?

 

[Centinel]

Which has no bearing on whether the law is unjust or not.

It is as to whether the law remains a law.

Which has no bearing on whether the law is just or not.

Do you consider a law unjust if it protects a Christer employee from an employer that harasses them over their religion?

If you provide more detail about the law you're talking about, I can give you an answer.

It's a simple question...a hypothetical question...would you consider a law unjust if it protects a Christer employee from an employer that harasses them over their religion? Yes or no.

What do you mean by "protect"? Does that mean make the act you described a crime or allow the employee to sue the employer?

What do you mean by "harrass"? Do you mean assault, battery, sexual assault? Or do you mean some other act?

Would the law only apply when the alleged victim is a Christer, or would any victim be equally protected by the law?

 

[Coyote]

Who is EXCUSING anyone? Again (though I won't hold my breath as you have steadfastly refused to back up your claims) - please provide a link where I have excused Muslims for discrimminatory behavior.

I backed up my claims. You dismissed them. Here's how I see it, the moment you acknowledge the proof I posted is the moment your argument dies.

You accused me of going on an anti-Islamic rant, while completely sidestepping the revelation that liberals (apparently you included) do practice religious double standards when it comes to Christianity and Islam.

You made claims. You backed them up with material that had nothing to do with the claim.

You made claims about me but provided no quotes or links.

You made claims about Islamic bakers but provided no links to support it and instead built a strawman about how Muslims supposedly get free passes and Christians don't. Nothing about your claim about Muslim bakers - just a bunch of generalities.

 

[Seawytch]

I will continue to ignore any questions about my personal life. What I do is none of your business. So stop asking me or I'll report you to the mods, asshole.

So if you don't want me assuming, I'll ask you. Do you support laws that punish a person for choosing not to engage in trade with someone?

But how do you know if you're doing the right things in life if you don't tell Seawytch so she can determine that and inform you if what you are doing is adequate or not? I mean she is the standard, she says so

Well, you're obviously doing it wrong. Gays are getting married just like straight folks (despite your "educating them) and in some places you have to serve them, just like you have to serve black folks. (Oh and a majority of Americans support adding gay folks to PA laws, not getting rid of all of them) oopsie!

You really suck at this educating thing I reckon.

Swish, complete evasion. You asked me why I haven't personally changed the PA law. I asked you for an example of how you met your standard. What laws have you personally changed, the standard you hold me to.

Man up, Charlie. Your standard, you demonstrate how you've done it

I don't expect you do it all by yourself Kazzie, but I would think you'd do something beyond whining on an internet message board, but that's all you've got.

I mean, sure, you could call your congressman, but you know you'd get laughed at for suggesting a repeal of Title II of the CRA. We already know what happened to Rand when he suggested in on Rachel Maddow...he now pretends he never suggested it.

Kind of like how gays felt when they called their congresscritters demanding that DOMA or DADT be repealed back in the day... but we didn't give up and just whine about it on a message board. We went out and fought for it. We raised money, we made phone calls, we even went door to door.

But how are those opposed to PA laws fighting them? Are they going after the granddaddy of all PA laws? No, they bitch and moan about "Christian persecution" because 50 year old laws also include "the gheys" in some places.

Whine away Kaz old boy, it's as effective as...

Stopped reading at whining, I'm sick of your schtick

Of course you did. So ignore me Kazzie.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, Islam is a very conservative religion and yes, they tend to be homophobic

Oooh, that's crossing a line Coyote.

Comparing them to conservatives? Don't think you'll get away with it. That thinly veiled slight at conservatives is a bit petty don't you think?

They don't "tend" to be homophobic, they are routinely homophobic.

You're on quite a bender aren't you presuming to tell me what I'll get away with or not? Tone down the pomposity a notch.

No. It's not "petty". It's accurate. Conservatives and conservative religions tend to be more homophobic.

You seem to have some issues here.

 

[OKTexas]

You mean the power of perversion and bad conduct. Like I said there was no discrimination in the laws.

I get that you don't like to think that Gay Americans are equal citizens with you. Bummer for you.

BS, they've always been equal, equal wasn't good enough. I'm getting tired of nudist being discriminated against, after all, weren't we all born that way? So come on and try to lecture me on social norms, I dare ya.

Oh we were equal when we could be fired for being gay?
We were equal when we couldn't serve openly in the military?
We were equal when we couldn't marry the one we love?
We were equal when we could legally have our children taken from us or we could not adopt?

Conduct has consequences, if you keep your conduct private, guess what, no consequences. Gay or straight is conduct, a conscious choice, and we discriminate against undesirable conduct all the time. BTW why did you not address my concern, are you afraid any thing you say will undermine your own positions?

I agree that conduct has consequences.....Sweet Cakes Bakery broke the law with their conduct and are paying the consequences.

Still dodging I see.

 

[Seawytch]

Making a purchase in a retail store is different than having someone cater an event. It was the event the baker objected to.

No, it's not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

I have yet to go to a wedding where the cake baker was an integral part of the wedding ceremony....have you? Usually the cake gets delivered to the reception and that's that.

Irrelevant, but the biggest crime against your fellow citizens are the cases where photographers were forced to witness and photograph fag weddings and kisses, that is sick

And still those cases lost in court.

Why are anti gay photographers any different than racist ones that are repulsed by interracial couples?

They aren't, no photographer should be forced to work an interracial wedding either or any other wedding for any other reason they want. We are citizens, not subjects. Find a photographer who wants to work the wedding, most people do. And you know that's my view, which is why I'm insulting you and your dyke buddy at this point. You keep ignoring my view you know well and asking your same stupid questions again.

Last thing I'd have wanted at my interracial wedding 27 years ago was a photographer who didn't want to be there. Yeah, I'm going to get their best work. That you do want someone who doesn't want to be there is just your authoritarian leftism, it's about power, not right.

And seriously, baking the cake? Gee, I spilled the flour on the floor, better get the broom and dustpan and sweep that up. Looks OK to me though, don't want to waste it. Hmmm...maybe we can put in half the sugar, that would taste great. Ooops, I made too much icing, better lick off the extra.

Yeah, you eat that cake ...

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

 

[kaz]

But how do you know if you're doing the right things in life if you don't tell Seawytch so she can determine that and inform you if what you are doing is adequate or not? I mean she is the standard, she says so

Well, you're obviously doing it wrong. Gays are getting married just like straight folks (despite your "educating them) and in some places you have to serve them, just like you have to serve black folks. (Oh and a majority of Americans support adding gay folks to PA laws, not getting rid of all of them) oopsie!

You really suck at this educating thing I reckon.

Swish, complete evasion. You asked me why I haven't personally changed the PA law. I asked you for an example of how you met your standard. What laws have you personally changed, the standard you hold me to.

Man up, Charlie. Your standard, you demonstrate how you've done it

I don't expect you do it all by yourself Kazzie, but I would think you'd do something beyond whining on an internet message board, but that's all you've got.

I mean, sure, you could call your congressman, but you know you'd get laughed at for suggesting a repeal of Title II of the CRA. We already know what happened to Rand when he suggested in on Rachel Maddow...he now pretends he never suggested it.

Kind of like how gays felt when they called their congresscritters demanding that DOMA or DADT be repealed back in the day... but we didn't give up and just whine about it on a message board. We went out and fought for it. We raised money, we made phone calls, we even went door to door.

But how are those opposed to PA laws fighting them? Are they going after the granddaddy of all PA laws? No, they bitch and moan about "Christian persecution" because 50 year old laws also include "the gheys" in some places.

Whine away Kaz old boy, it's as effective as...

Stopped reading at whining, I'm sick of your schtick

Of course you did. So ignore me Kazzie.

No thanks, not now. I'm satisfied pointing out you and your buddy are a couple of stupid dykes who don't understand discussions and have no long term memory.

I will concede one thing though. In terms of effectiveness, with the work it takes me to open one mind, you can silence 10 with intimidation. But when it comes to winning, you consider the latter winning and I consider the former winning. Which is why I keep doing it that way. And I'm effective. It's hard work to open minds. Which is why you chose to silence dissenters.

I ask you, wouldn't it be more interesting to debate my actual views rather than keep repeating your strawmen?

 

[kaz]

No, it's not. Catering an event is like putting a roof on someone's house, or mowing their lawn.

You can't discriminate.

I have yet to go to a wedding where the cake baker was an integral part of the wedding ceremony....have you? Usually the cake gets delivered to the reception and that's that.

Irrelevant, but the biggest crime against your fellow citizens are the cases where photographers were forced to witness and photograph fag weddings and kisses, that is sick

And still those cases lost in court.

Why are anti gay photographers any different than racist ones that are repulsed by interracial couples?

They aren't, no photographer should be forced to work an interracial wedding either or any other wedding for any other reason they want. We are citizens, not subjects. Find a photographer who wants to work the wedding, most people do. And you know that's my view, which is why I'm insulting you and your dyke buddy at this point. You keep ignoring my view you know well and asking your same stupid questions again.

Last thing I'd have wanted at my interracial wedding 27 years ago was a photographer who didn't want to be there. Yeah, I'm going to get their best work. That you do want someone who doesn't want to be there is just your authoritarian leftism, it's about power, not right.

And seriously, baking the cake? Gee, I spilled the flour on the floor, better get the broom and dustpan and sweep that up. Looks OK to me though, don't want to waste it. Hmmm...maybe we can put in half the sugar, that would taste great. Ooops, I made too much icing, better lick off the extra.

Yeah, you eat that cake ...

So you should concentrate your efforts on the CRA not little state and local laws.

Where are all the threads about how "unfair" PA laws are to racist Christians instead of just anti gay ones?

Who did you write that post to? My position has consistently been that anyone can discriminate to any other citizen for any reason they choose. "Christian" makes no difference to me. I'm not a Christian. You'd know that if you had a long term memory, I've told you that many times.

Again, wouldn't arguing my actual views be more interesting? You just have one set of talking points and that's all you want to use? When the only tool in your belt is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

 

[Coyote]

If it's a set up, I think it's wrong. As I said in the original case - they had dealt with this baker many times before and had a reasonable expectation that this time would be no different. But I think other cases have been deliberately seeking out someone who would refuse them - it's like baiting. If you want to get married, it should be a joyous and love filled affair - you do not want someone involved who does not support it.

Set up or not, the Muslims bakeries did the same exact thing that got a Christian bakery heavily fined and bashed by the left. Either bakeries can refuse based on religious beliefs or not. No exceptions. We can't let Muslims off the hook because they are a minority.

That isn't the reason they are being let "off the hook". In fact, Christian bakers in Michigan will also be let off the hook since Michigan has no laws prohibitting this.

Can you find any Christian bakers that were sued in Michigan?

What if bakeries made it clear that they are religious? When libs talk about Muslims, they ask why anyone would go there knowing their views on gays. Why can't Christians get the same considerations?

Which libs have said that or made it an excuse?

You want to let Muslims off the hook because they were "baited" and because people should know they'll refuse. In other words, they are given a pass for discriminating because of their religion, but Christians will be heavily fined and bashed. You don't think Christian bakeries will be baited at every turn?

I said "entrapment" and I feel the same about entrapment whether it's a Christian bakery or a bakery of another religion. And...you're wrong. Christians won't be "heavily fined". ANYONE who violates that law in that state and gets taken to court could be fined.

The Christian bakery paid a hefty fine and will go out of business. The Muslim bakeries who refused service should get the same. Either that or allow religious freedom and find another place since many are happy to cater to same sex weddings.

The fine they paid is inline with what is normal for cases like that. In fact, according to Snopes,

The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter ofAndrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.​

Yes, a Muslim bakery who refused service in that state should get the same. (How many times does this need to be repeated?).

I would never want to force someone to serve me against their will. Bad karma!!!

I wouldn't either, but then again - I would never treat a customer in the way Sweet Cakes did. Saveliberty's example is the way to act.